Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Cyprus

Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cyprus following the breakdown of United Nations talks.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): In line with Security Council resolution 649, we will continue to support United Nations efforts to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement to the Cyprus dispute.

Mr. Orme: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House what action he is taking, along with our European colleagues, to bring meaningful negotiations, especially with Turkish Cypriots who want negotiations? What part are the Government taking in that regard?

Mr. Maude: That matter is properly raised when there are discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Turkish Government. The right hon. Gentleman asked about action by our European partners. We have taken the view, as have many others, that the best chance of achieving serious negotiations leading to an enduring settlement is the initiative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to which we have given strong support, and we have done all that we can to help it move forward.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the Government continue to set their face like flint against any recognition of the Denktas regime in the north of Cyprus? Bearing in mind the enormous demographic changes that have taken place in the north of Cyprus as a result of the arrival of a large number of Turkish settlers, should not we regard any elections that take place there with some sceptism?

Mr. Maude: On the first point, there is certainly no intention to recognise the proclaimed so-called republic of Turkish northern Cyprus. It was illegally declared and we shall not recognise it. On the second point, it is certainly the case that there are some settlers in northern Cyprus. It is difficult to know the exact number, but I understand that the proportion of settlers to the indigenous population is not such as to have a decisive effect on any elections that

may take place. It remains the case that we have to look for a representative of the Turkish Cypriot community with whom business can be done.

Mr. Corbett: Now that the United Nations Secretary-General has felt justified in complaining about the intransigence of Mr. Denktash in the intercommunal talks under his sponsorship, will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before she goes to the Gallipoli commemorations later this month and ask her to seek discussions with the Turkish Government to get them to make better efforts to use whatever influence they may have over Mr. Denktash? Does the Minister agree that the best key to the solution of the problem for the two communities in Cyprus lies in Ankara?

Mr. Maude: There will be discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she goes to Turkey later this month, and it seems likely that this subject will come up then.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has sought that the policy of subsidiarity would operate to the benefit of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maude: We support the principle of subsidiarity as an important way of avoiding unnecessary legislation at Community level. There is widespread support for the principle across the Community, and we believe that it should be rigorously applied in practice.

Mr. Gill: Given the reluctance of large organisations and bureaucracies to devolve powers to the lower orders, does my hon. Friend consider that for the principle of subsidiarity to be acceptable it will be necessary for a full and detailed prospectus to be issued showing what powers will be devolved to the national Parliaments?

Mr. Maude: I am not sure that I regard the nation states of Europe as the lower orders. I accept my hon. Friend's point that it is important that there should be the maximum leaving of powers to the nation states, the member states of the Community. On the desirability or otherwise of a comprehensive list of what should be done at each level, the best way to proceed is for there to be a presumption, effectively, that matters are best dealt with at national level unless it can be shown that that is better done at Community level. That is the principle of subsidiarity, which has been widely subscribed to by political leaders across the European Community. Our concern is that the words are not yet matched by deeds. It is important that they should be.

Mr. Spearing: Will not the Minister reconsider the use of the phrase, "principle of subsidiarity"? Has he seen the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the operation of the Single European Act, HC 82 of this Session? When I was asked about the issue as a witness, I said that the only thing that was clear about it was that it was not clear. Has he read the opinion of Mr. Speaker's Counsel about this use of the word and its meaning? Does he recall the exchanges that he had with the Select Committee on European Legislation? Bearing all those matters in mind, will he reconsider his definitive use of the word?

Mr. Maude: I have certainly seen the excellent report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, produced under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I have not read in detail the evidence that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave to the Committee, but, having been alerted to its seminal importance, I shall do so. The point that he made, that there was no universally accepted definition of subsidiarity, is fair. It is important that it should be defined in a way that exerts pressure for matters to be dealt with at national, not Community, level, unless a case can be made for matters to be dealt with better at Community level. That is something we support and shall seek to promote.

Eastern Europe (Elections)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the conduct of the elections in eastern Europe.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have received a number of representations expressing the hope that the elections in eastern Europe will be free and fair. The East German election and the first round of Hungarian elections appear to have been conducted properly. They mark a major step forward in the creation of democratic, pluralist societies.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing interest among would-be parliamentarians in eastern Europe to visit this country, to see for themselves how this mother of Parliaments works? Is he further aware of the great assistance given by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of the good work done by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre, which is financed largely by the Foreign Office. I am also aware of the good work done by the IPU, a number of other organisations and Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. There is a good deal of room for more such interchanges.

Sir David Steel: Has the Minister of State noticed one significant feature of the elections that were held in the German Democratic Republic and Hungary—and, indeed, Namibia—and that are now under way in Czechoslovakia? It was significant that not one of those emerging democracies was daft enough to imitate the British electoral system. Does he accept that the principle that a public minority should no longer hold sway in any of those countries is good, and one which might be followed here?

Mr Waldegrave: If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that I should pursue that argument because one of the difficulties emerging in some of those countries is the incredible plurality of parties produced by the proportional systems that they are following. One country now has 68 parties. Those countries may face dire problems of weak Governments at times when they need a clear direction of policy. That may cause them great problems. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to press that point. There is a matter relating to

the Hungarian election on which I can agree with him: Hungary has managed to hold a successful election which produced no Socialist parties.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Romania, which I had the chance of visiting recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—there is concern among the members of the historic parties about the position of the National Salvation Front and that elections there should be free and fair? One way in which Romanians believe that that can be achieved is to send a team of observers from this country. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that observers go in considerable numbers and early enough to see the preparations?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can announce today in response to the sensible point made by my hon. Friend that we propose to send a team of 12 professional election observers drawn from senior local government officers, some of whom have taken part in observing elections in Namibia and elsewhere, to observe the last part of the campaign and the election itself. That is in addition to the Members of Parliament who will be observing the election. That will go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's legitimate concern.

Central America

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet members of the Government of the United States of America to discuss human rights in central America.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide variety of subjects, including central America.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister will no doubt be aware that this weekend the five central American presidents met and issued a statement calling on the Contras to be disbanded when President Chamorro takes office on 25 April. What are the Government doing to ensure that that happens? It is essential for democracy that these destabilising forces be taken out of action.
Furthermore, what are the Government doing to persuade the Americans, who have had such a bad influence on Nicaragua, to help get rid of the Contras?

Mr. Sainsbury: We have consistently supported the Esquipulas process and the efforts of the central American states to find a peaceful solution to the disputes in the area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will do likewise and not criticise the United States Administration all the time, perhaps concentrating a little more on condemning organisations such as the FMLN —Faraburdo Marti National Liberation Front— which seek to overthrow democratically elected Governments by terrorist means.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend invite the new President of Nicaragua, Mrs. Chamorro, to London and to Westminster so that the House and the Government can congratulate her on removing another left-wing socialist regime in central America?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure my hon. Friend that the President-elect of Nicaragua would be a very welcome visitor here. We warmly welcomed her victory in the


election, and we pay tribute to those who were responsible for the election being carried out in a free and fair manner —particularly to the numerous observers, including United Nations observers, who played a major role in ensuring that the election was free and fair.

Lithuania

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration the British Government have given to their relations with Lithuania and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Waldegrave: We support the right of the Baltic peoples to decide their own future, and have welcomed the considerable progress made in the past two years.
In view of recent developments in Lithuania, we think it vital that restraint should be shown on all sides and that progress should be made through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians. We attach particular importance to the repeated statements by the Soviet leadership that there is no question of the use of force. We have made clear our concerns to the Soviet authorities.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that, given the increasing bullying and harassment of the Lithuanians by the Kremlin, his statement, which appears even-handed, is unacceptable to a growing number of people in this country? Will he now make a slight but significant change of policy and tell President Gorbachev boldly that the right of self-determination of the people of Lithuania was not extinguished by the secret protocol of 1939, and that President Gorbachev should be ashamed of claiming to be a beneficiary of that fact? That right of self-determination is enshrined in the Helsinki accord; and no one can trust that there has been a fundamental change in the Soviet Union until it adheres to those accords, particularly in relation to Lithuania.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Helsinki accord, however, also recognised de facto the boundaries of the Soviet Union as they are. They also recognised that changes in boundaries should be conducted by negotiation. The sheer truth of the matter is that peaceful transition to the independent Lithuania to which the Lithuanians have a right must be achieved through negotiation.
I can inform the House of one optimistic development, which is that a Lithuanian delegation is now having discussions with a senior member of the Politburo Mr. Yakovlev. We hope that those talks will lead to progress.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that the Soviet Union is intimating that it would be prepared to be more reasonable towards Lithuania if the west were to make concessions on German unification? Presumably, that means that the west should agree that Germany should not remain a member of NATO. Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself from any such thoughts? Would not the right course be for the Russians to stop bullying Lithuania and to agree that Germany should remain a member of NATO if it so wishes?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that no such deal should be contemplated and, indeed, it would not be possible. I agree with him and with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) that

sabre rattling and threats by the Soviet Union are not the way to conduct the negotiations that should be carried through to a conclusion.

Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Soviet Union, under Stalin, took over Lithuania, Latvia and other countries, and that that was an act of aggression against their peoples? However, is it not clear that Lithuania would not even be in a position to talk about independence had it not been for President Gorbachev's stand on perestroika? Although the Lithuanians have an absolute right to complete freedom from the Soviet Union, should not we endeavour to support sensible discussions and negotiations rather than military action by either side?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense. It is inconceivable that any Soviet leader during the past 40 years would have walked into the crowds at Vilnius to argue with the people about these matters. He would have sent a tank, and that would have been the end of it. We are anxious about the sabre rattling, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that steps have been taken in the right direction, and that that would not have happened without the general progress in the Soviet Union during the past few years.

Mr. Kilfedder: In the circumstances, should the Government appoint a diplomatic representative to Lithuania?

Mr. Waldegrave: That would not be right at the present time. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said, the Lithuanian people are entitled to independence, and when that is achieved we shall recognise the state. To intervene now might arouse further tension, which would not be sensible. We know from past events that if the worst came to the worst and force were used—we urge that it should not—there is nothing that we could do to stop it. It would be foolish to raise expectations that we could.

American Television

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States authorities concerning broadcasting by American television on a Cuban frequency, in violation of international agreements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sainsbury: None.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Minister explain why no representations have been made? Is he saying that the Government support such naked aggression by America on a small neighbouring country—[Interruption.] Is not there an agreement, signed by 138 countries, that prohibits that sort of invasion of television and radio air space? As the Prime Minister has a special relationship with America, will he please tell that country to stop those naked aggressive cowboy tactics against a small country and ask it to abide by the agreement that it has signed?

Mr. Sainsbury: I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman appears to regard something that might allow the people of Cuba to receive information from a source other than that controlled by their Government as naked aggression. There are two reasons why we have made—

Mr. Kaufman: That is inviting lawbreaking.

Mr. Sainsbury: If the right hon. Gentleman would be quiet for a moment, he might hear my answer.
There are two reasons why we have not made representations. The first is that it is for the International Telecommunications Union and the International Frequency Regulation Board to decide whether the broadcasting of TV Marti complies with international regulations. Secondly, it is a matter for the countries concerned, not for the Government.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that countries should seek the protection of such international regulations only if they obey them?

Mr. Sainsbury: We have always taken the view that one cannot be selective about the laws that one obeys.

Mr. Foulkes: But the American Government are violating a large number of international agreements to which they and the British Government are signatories, in what is now being described as tele-aggression on Cuba —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulkes: As you know, Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members often ask Opposition Members to condemn lawbreaking, so why do not the British Government condemn this lawbreaking by the Americans?

Mr. Sainsbury: I had hoped that Opposition Members would support the efforts of the BBC World Service, for example, to ensure that accurate information about world affairs is available in as many countries as possible. I suppose, from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that he would regard that as radio aggression. As I said earlier, it is for internationally established organisations and the two countries concerned to make a judgment.

Mr. Burt: When my hon. Friend next discusses television transmissions to Cuba with the United States, will he encourage it to beam as many programmes as possible about the collapse of communism in eastern Europe, so that the Cuban population can see what will surely come to them within the next couple of years?

Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that my hon. Friend is on to an important point. The Cuban authorities, and the President in particular, may be most alarmed at the idea of the people of Cuba being allowed to know what has happened elsewhere and fear that yet another Marxist-socialist regime would be overthrown if they did.

German Unification

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with Chancellor Kohl concerning the prospect of German unification.

Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Chancellor Kohl; and what issues will be discussed.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I met Chancellor Kohl at the

Anglo-German summit on 30 March. We had a good discussion on subjects that included the external aspects of German unification.
We welcome Chancellor Kohl's commitment to resolve the external aspects of German unification before unification itself takes place, and to continued German membership of NATO.

Mr. Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that the imminence of German reunification makes nonsense of the Prime Minister's insistence on pointing short-range nuclear missiles at the people of East Germany? In the interests of European and world security, will the Cabinet now get the Prime Minister to change her mind on that?

Mr. Hurd: The position was made pretty clear in the joint press conference that Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister gave. That NATO will continue to need a sensible mix of conventional and nuclear weapons in future is agreed generally in the alliance, and certainly between us and the Germans, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard what Chancellor Kohl said about needing full protection. We need to decide what that sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons on the continent of Europe should consist of—an important task, which has not yet been completed.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that whereas we wish to have and hope to continue good Anglo-German relations, the concentric circles proposals, which would tend to marginalise the United Kingdom in the context of our relations with the rest of Europe and with Germany, would not be acceptable to the United Kingdom, that we would not accept Mr. Christophersen's proposals on economic and monetary union, which were tabled recently at Ashford castle, and that we do not intend to move towards the political union currently being put forward through the European Commission?

Mr. Hurd: We are certainly opposed to any definition of political union in Europe which includes a central executive or a central Parliament removing powers from this Parliament. That is clear. As regards economic and monetary union, there was a meeting of Finance Ministers in Ireland last weekend which was the first stage in something for which we have always argued—full and adequate preparation. As my hon. Friend knows, we are in favour of beginning and completing stage 1 of the Delors plan, but we do not believe that stages 2 and 3, which have been debated in the House, should point us in the direction of central institutions in that sphere. That is a substantial discussion under way among the right people.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a great many people take a different view from that which he has just expressed? In particular, Chancellor Kohl, when at Koenigswinter, indicated that he saw German reunification in the context of accelerating economic and monetary union within the European Community. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that?

Mr. Hurd: We are in favour of and committed to moving towards economic and monetary union. It is just that, as the hon. Member knows, we have a different route for that process which we regard as a more liberal and open route. As was clear from the press comments on the meeting in Ireland, a substantial discussion is under way. The only people who would be surprised that we were


taking a substantial part in that substantial discussion would be those who have not listened to what we have been saying on the subject.

Mr. Robert Banks: Given that the uniting of the two Germanies is a natural desire of the German people and is unstoppable, is not the prospect of a united Germany nevertheless a chill reminder of two world wars? Would it not be appropriate to discuss with Chancellor Kohl the establishment of a ceiling on the military forces and types of equipment that Germany may use in future?

Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend knows, the present discussions in Vienna deal just with the limits on Soviet and American manpower. We have to harvest that agreement, which may not be entirely easy, and get it in the bag. After that, it is possible that all of the allies may wish to go on to a wider discussion including troop limits not just for the two super-powers but for others, possibly the Germans and possibly ourselves. As the Prime Minister said in Cambridge, we do not exclude the possibility of reductions. That is the next stage. The first stage is to get the agreement which is on the board and which is a possibility at Vienna.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman was less than straightforward in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). In view of the fact that Chancellor Kohl, when in this country last week, publicly joined all other sensible NATO leaders in opposing modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons—that is what he said—and in view of the fact that Britain is completely isolated on this issue, will the Foreign Secretary say which enemy the short-range nuclear weapons are aimed against? Is it the President of Czechoslovakia or the Prime Minister of Poland who were entertained at No. 10 recently? Is it the voters of East Germany or the voters of Hungary who have just defeated communism? Is it the Soviet troops who, as the Prime Minister herself says, should continue to be stationed in East Germany for the sake of European stability? We realise that the Prime Minister is totally irrational on this issue, but if the Foreign Secretary—

Hon. Members: "Speech."

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rather a long question.

Mr. Kaufman: If the Foreign Secretary is to be at all credible as a candidate for the Tory succession, will he take the side of a sensible Chancellor Kohl against a loopy Prime Minister?

Mr. Hurd: The House was a little unkind to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He needs a little time to disentangle himself and we must show him some tolerance.
The purpose of all force, be it conventional or nuclear, is to deter an aggressor.

Mr. Tony Banks: Which one?

Mr. Hurd: The point of the existing doctrine and of any future doctrine is to deter any possible aggressor. What is particularly agreed between Chancellor Kohl and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is that to achieve that in the case of Germany, Britain and the rest of the allies, there must be a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. That is what Chancellor Kohl said at his press conference, and that much is entirely clear.

NATO

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the result of the East German elections for the NATO alliance.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: He is wasting time.

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry, but at least I have disentangled myself in silence, which is perhaps preferable to the alternative offered by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
NATO has long supported the cause for freedom in the German Democratic Republic and throughout eastern Europe. We welcome the democratic elections in the German Democratic Republic, because the establishment of a genuine democracy there will contribute to stability and security in Europe. We stress the crucial importance of continued German membership of NATO.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Chancellor Kohl's commitment to keeping West Germany within NATO is as important to West German security as to that of all western nations?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in the hosiery and shoe industries in my constituency in Leicestershire that the elections in East Germany and eastern Europe will herald a new flood of imports? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that to help British industry there must be strict regulations on imports from eastern Europe as a consequence of the democratic process there?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. His second point is also correct. Under existing arrangements, the western border of the Federal Republic of Germany is policed and controlled to ensure that East German goods do not enter the Community unfairly, and that will continue.

Mr. Wareing: Has the Foreign Secretary seen a report in Stern magazine of a poll in West Germany in which a majority of West Germans said that they were opposed to any form of NATO forces across what is now the boundary with the German Democratic Republic, up to the Oder-Neisse line? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reassure not only the West German people but the Soviet Union that, regardless of whether Germany is in or out of NATO, Britain will not support NATO forces moving up to the Oder-Neisse line?

Mr. Hurd: It is extremely important for the security of us all that a united Germany should remain in NATO. However, there is a wide body of reasonable opinion that so far as the eastern part of a united Germany is concerned, there should not be stationed there NATO—that is to say, United States, British, French or Canadian —forces.

Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if war, tension and instability in Europe are not to result from the unification of Germany and democratic elections in East Germany, it is essential for each nation to follow the path


of negotiations on difficult issues, as in Lithuania? Will my right hon. Friend outline the careful and considered negotiations that he faces in the next two or three months?

Mr. Hurd: It would take a little time to do that. The two-plus-four negotiations, about which I gave evidence to the Select Committee this morning, are now beginning; the discussions in NATO are under way; the discussions in the European Community, for which there will be a special European Council on 28 April, are under way; and there are the discussions about the Polish borders, in the achieving of which we have played a prominent part. In all those ways, we now have what was clearly lacking a couple of months ago—a set of frameworks or discussions in which the external aspects of Germany unification can be taken on board and dealt with.

Vietnamese Boat People

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

Mr. Maude: For the first time since May 1987, there is now a sustained net outflow of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong. But it is too soon to know whether there will be another large influx into Hong Kong this year.

Mr. Darling: Does the Minister accept that aid to Vietnam is the one thing which might stop the flow of refugees from Vietnam to Hong Kong and might also encourage some of the refugees and boat people to go back? Have the Government been using the refugees as negotiating pawns in their discussions with the Vietnamese Government? Will the Minister make it clear that no matter how reluctant the United States Government may be to give it, unless aid is given to Vietnam the refugee problem—whether they are economic or political refugees —will continue?

Mr. Maude: When the boat people return to Vietnam, aid is given. Substantial amounts of money are given to accompany their return and to provide for their reintegration and resettlement in their own communities, and it is right that that should happen. The incentive for them to return is thus already provided.
As for deterring people from leaving Vietnam in the first place, one reason why they leave is, of course, poverty in Vietnam—a country which is undergoing economic reform. I do not think that it would be right for us to start any large-scale programme of support for Vietnam while that country steadfastly refuses to accept its international obligations in respect of its own people. The whole international community has rightly said that Vietnam should accept those international obligations.

Mr. Raison: Is the Minister satisfied that the number of volunteers in Hong Kong to go back to Vietnam is building up satisfactorily? Does he feel that sufficient information is given to boat people in Hong Kong about the advantages of return and that enough information is given to potential boat people in Vietnam about the disadvantages of going to Hong Kong?

Mr. Maude: I believe that more information is being transmitted in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests. There is some evidence this year that the number of those

leaving certainly north Vietnam, from which there has been the biggest outflow in recent years, is reduced. I have no doubt that a principal reason for that was our decision in December last year to return a planeload of people to Vietnam. That sent a clear message to north Vietnam that there was only one place for people who were not refugees to go. and that was to return to Vietnam. I hope that that message is being understood more widely in Vietnam.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister, in his determination not to allow any economic refugees from Vietnam to come to this country, keeping in mind the fact that in the German Democratic Republic right now there are more than 50,000 refugees from Vietnam on long-term work contracts? If Germany becomes united, presumably those people will be able to move into the Federal Republic and perhaps even into this country. What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman talks as though it is a decision by us not to allow economic migrants to come here. He must be aware that that decision was reached unanimously by every country that has any interest in the matter. No country in the west is opening its doors to non-refugees. All have taken the view that the only place for those people to go is back to Vietnam. The fact that there are some Vietnamese workers in the GDR arises from the fact that the GDR voluntarily opened its doors to them. No country in the west is opening its doors to those in Hong Kong.

Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Vietnamese Government are in a Catch-22 situation? If they seek to please us by agreeing to the involuntary repatriation of their people they offend the American State Department, which strongly opposes that. The fire ought to be directed at getting the American State Department to make an assessment of the present situation in Vietnam, because it believes that people are being sent back to a tyrannous regime that it remembers from 1979. We are now in 1990 and the situation is different, and for the American State Department to get its policy right it needs to make a reassessment of the true situation in Vietnam.

Mr. Maude: We have made the point to the United States Administration that the Vietnam of today is not the same as the Vietnam of 10 years ago. Things have moved forward. The country is certainly reforming in economic terms, with some reforms of a political nature, and that is very desirable. But the Americans have a position on this matter which is somewhat curious and is wrapped up in the history of the past 20 years. The view that my hon. Friend expresses is reasonable, but until Vietnam accepts its international obligations to accept its own people back it would be wrong for us to go unilaterally down the path of giving aid.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the implications of the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) in which he seemed to imply that the only economic aid to be provided for Vietnam would be if Vietnamese people went to Hong Kong and then back to Vietnam. Surely the answer to the problem of economic migration from Vietnam is to make that extremely poor country less poor so that people will not wish to migrate for economic


reasons, and sensible western economic aid for infrastructure and construction is the best way to do that. Will the Government break free from the American obsession on Vietnam, have their own policy and provide economic aid?

Mr. Maude: The idea that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be propounding—that our policy on Vietnam is identical with that of the Americans—is a bizarre one. I did not say to his hon. Friend that aid was available only for those returning. The fact is that aid is given to those who return to encourage them to do so, and that is having its effect, but it must be clear that if we were to take a decision tomorrow to introduce aid into Vietnam that could not deter an outflow of people from Vietnam this year. Hong Kong has an immediate problem of enormous dimensions. It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman could bring himself to express a little concern about the burdens that that territory is bearing.

Romania

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has held with the Government of Romania on the forthcoming elections in that country.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the forthcoming election in Romania with the Romanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Celac, in Windhoek on 20 March. Our position is that a free and fair campaign and poll are vital for Romania's progress towards democracy.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that we must do something in addition to the initial discussion? Is he aware of the growing international concern and the concern inside Romania that next month's election will lead to a continuation of one-party rule in that country because the present Government there is full of people involved in the previous regime? Does he agree that the only thing that will allow a free election is reasonable access to the media by the alternative parties? Is not there a grave danger that the ruling Government—the Frontului Salvarii Nationale—will turn out to be not the front for the salvation of the nation, but the front for the salvation of communism?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of the anxieties that have been expressed in the sense that the hon. Member describes. There are other views, but we are monitoring the situation closely. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), it is essential that we have a proper capacity to observe the campaign and the election. We have also taken some further steps to try to help to provide the capacity for opposition parties apart from the National Salvation Front to fight the election, and we have decided to send more than 100 tonnes of paper to enable people to print pamphlets, as that is not at present available in Romania.

Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety in Romania about the continuing activities of the National Salvation Front, in particular about the fact that it is claiming credit for much of the EEC aid that has gone to that country? Can he reassure the House that he will make sure that the aid that goes to Romania from this country in the form of newsprint and other EEC aid will be fairly distributed and that the National Salvation Front cannot claim credit for it?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a good point and we shall endeavour to do that. It is also important to distinguish between the role of the National Salvation Front in different parts of Romania. I believe that in some places it genuinely represents a broad alliance of people, but in other areas there is much more doubt about its role.

Mr. Faulds: As to Romania, a country which I have not recently visited, unlike so many of my colleagues—

Mr. Tony Banks: You must be the only one—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend must talk to Thomas Cook's about a trip.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: I thought that you were going to arrange it for me, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that whatever Government evolves from the forthcoming elections in Romania, Her Majesty's Government will make strong representations to that Government that they should totally abandon the appalling Ceausescu policy of destroying hundreds of traditional villages and dozens and dozens of Romania's marvellous medieval churches?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that there is the prospect of a room becoming available in a couple of weeks' time which the hon. Gentleman could take up. It is fair to say that the National Salvation Front instantly abandoned the policy of destroying villages and there is no evidence that there has been any going back on that position.

Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the future Romanian political system should make adequate provision for the political, economic and educational rights of the important Hungarian and German-speaking minorities, not only in the interests of the consent of their own population but in terms of its acceptability to neighbouring states?

Mr. Waldegrave: The treatment of minorities is exceedingly important. The Hungarian minority, with its long-standing history of conflict with the Romanian majority, is one of the most difficult of those issues. However, it behoves us also to say that the Hungarians should treat the situation carefully because there are two sides to that issue.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the General Affairs Council of Ministers meeting of 2 and 3 April.

Mr. Maude: The Council considered preparations for the intergovernmental conference and Herr Genscher reported on recent developments in Germany. The Commission reported on talks on EC-Japan trade, on progress in EC-EFTA discussions and on the signature of a trade, commercial and economic agreement with Czechoslovakia. We proposed that all quantitative restrictions on imports from Czechoslovakia should be removed as from 1 July.
The Council discussed work on immigration problems and member states' policies on visas for eastern Europe.


My right hon. Friend argued for further measures of Community support to the black population of South Africa, and a trade and co-operation agreement with Argentina was signed.
Ministers of the Twelve agreed, at my right hon. Friend's suggestion, to issue a further statement on Lithuania.

Mr. Campbell: Was there a chance at the Council of Ministers meeting to discuss the appalling pollution of the North sea? If not, when does the Minister intend to get a grip on that problem?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but there was a large conference on the North sea recently, at which it became apparent that although we have 40 per cent. of the North sea coastline, less than 20 per cent. of the pollution in the North sea comes from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Favell: Can my hon. Friend say whether our European partners accept that under this Government there is no chance of the United Kingdom being part of a federal Europe?

Mr. Maude: We have made our views on that very plain. We have a clear vision of the sort of European Community that we want to be part of, and it is not a federal one.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister assure the House that the General Affairs Council will keep in the forefront of its mind the recommendation from the European Parliament that no further protocols on scientific and cultural agreements should be allowed between the European Community and Israel until Israeli forces on the West Bank and in Gaza treat Palestinians in a much more reasonable fashion?

Mr. Maude: We understand the anxieties that have been expressed by the European Parliament, but we cannot accept that sanctions of the sort suggested are the right way forward.

Mr. Lawrence: Since the conclusions of this very important Council might have ramifications—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lawrence: Since the Council's conclusions might have substantial ramifications for the future of Britain, would not it be a good idea, in the interests of parliamentary responsibility, for us to be told in advance of such meetings, the order of agenda and the views likely to be expressed by British Ministers?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are pleased to have the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) back with us, but perhaps he could remain silent while the Minister speaks.

Mr. Maude: The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is one which surfaces from time to time. We make clear in answer to a parliamentary question each month the main subjects likely to come up at the Council of Ministers in the forthcoming month, so that much is public knowledge. As regards making the Government's position absolutely clear in advance, one cannot know beforehand exactly

what propositions will be made and the way in which the discussion will go. It would be unreasonable to expect us to be able to do so.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister's list of subjects raised at the meeting did not seem to include the conduct of Iraq. Surely Her Majesty's Government must have raised that subject at the first meeting of the General Affairs Council since the murder of Farzad Bazoft, the illegal incarceration of Daphne Parish and the continued incarceration of Ian Richter. Not only that, we have seen Iraq trafficking in nuclear triggers and this week's threat to use chemical weapons against Israel.
If the subject was not raised, why on earth was it not? Why are the Government not initiating a major international isolation of the evil regime in Iraq? Are they paralysed by the fact that at the last Foreign Affairs Council meeting they themselves undermined Community sanctions against South Africa?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member's last point is a fairly fatuous one. As regards his first point, we asked for support from our European Community partners for the appeal for clemency for Farzad Bazoft, and the Twelve responded very fully to our request. As for the other issues, there are other fora in Geneva in which we are raising those issues, but the hon. Member would do well to bear in mind the interests of others concerned who are imprisoned in Iraq. We must tread carefully.

Mr. Dunn: When the issue of German reunification was raised, was it agreed by Ministers that the process leading to reunification should be handled with great caution and that, before reunification can take place, the fears, anxieties and concerns of West Germany's allies and neighbours must be debated and resolved?

Mr. Maude: There is no dispute between the Federal Republic of Germany and any of the European Community partners about that. It is accepted that German unification has implications for a number of other countries, not just in the Community but more widely. The point that we made some months ago, now generally accepted, is that there must be fora in which these matters can be properly discussed. There are considerable implications for the European Community in the absorption of the German Democratic Republic into Germany; they must be sorted out and fully discussed.

South Africa

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with officials of the South African Government.

Mr. Hurd: I met President de Klerk, Mr. Pik Botha and other South African Ministers in Cape Town on 19 March. We had good talks, which reinforced my view that the South African Government are committed to fundamental reform. I also met several opposition leaders in South Africa and saw some of the 250 aid projects that Britain is supporting to help prepare black South Africans for the future after apartheid. I made it clear throughout that our aim is to see apartheid dismantled and to help the development of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic South Africa.

Mr. Hughes: The House will be encouraged by what the Secretary of State has said, but did he raise the additional important matter of the remaining residual debt of Namibia, which the International Court of Justice in 1971 ruled was improperly incurred during the period of South African administration? Apparently, the figure is 892 million rand—one third of Namibia's GDP. That debt should not have to be paid by Namibia but by South Africa. If the matter was not raised, will the Foreign Secretary undertake to raise it at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Hurd: No, I did not raise the matter. I heard about it later when I was in Windhoek and I know that it is being discussed by the new Government of Namibia and the South African Government. We shall keep an eye on what happens.

Mr. John Carlisle: Since Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress have now pulled out of the intended talks with officials of the South African Government because of the continuing violence in the black townships, would not it be totally inappropriate for our Prime Minister to meet Mr. Mandela when he comes to London next week unless he and the ANC totally renounce the armed struggle and move towards a more peaceful solution in South Africa which must accommodate Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha?

Mr. Hurd: It is a pity that the meeting on 11 April has been postponed, but I understand that President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela intend to meet shortly. We hope that that will lead to talks about the talks which have been

postponed and then into a wider grouping in which everyone expects leaders such as Chief Buthelezi to have a clear place.

Soviet Foreign Minister

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the Soviet Foreign Minister; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Hurd: I last met Mr. Shevardnadze on 12 February in Ottawa at the open skies conference. Our discussions focused on developments in Europe. Since then we have kept in frequent direct touch.

Mr. Winnick: Is it the Foreign Secretary's intention to discuss with the Soviet Union the bloody terrorist dictatorship in Iraq and the way in which chemical weapons have already been used against the Kurdish nationals in that country? Is not there a strong case for the closest possible co-ordination between nations, including those in eastern Europe, to ban the sale of high-level technology to that terrorist regime? Is not it time that we learnt some of the lessons of pre-war years in no longer appeasing notorious and bloody dictatorships?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed—I covered that point in my recent statement on the subject. It is important that we should draw the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries as closely as possible into the work of enforcing the non-proliferation treaty and the missile group to which I referred in my statement.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the introduction of a scheme in Scotland which takes account of the fact that the increase in the upper capital limit for community charge benefit which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech cannot be applied restrospectively.
I propose accordingly to set up a temporary scheme outside the social security benefits system to provide for special payments to those affected in Scotland. I have in mind those with capital resources of between £8,001 and £16,000 who will receive community charge benefit this year and were liable for the personal community charge during 1989–90. The scheme which we are discussing with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities envisages that these people will get a special payment which will be the same percentage of the community charge that they paid last year as their rebate will be of this year's charge. I intend to make minor amendments to the transitional relief regulations in order to implement the scheme.
I have already indicated that we believe that around 15,000 to 20,000 individuals might be eligible. Expenditure will depend on the precise numbers benefiting, but I consider that a scheme of the kind I have described will require financial provision of up to £4 million, to cover both the value of payments and administration costs. The sum of up to £4 million is small in comparison with the total resources of £9,500 million available to me, and will be found as part of the normal process in which projected underspends and overspends are adjusted throughout the year. No spending programme will be cut.
With this scheme the Government have shown willing to respond to the concern which was expressed in Scotland about the implications of the increase in the upper capital limit.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the statement; it would be ungracious to do otherwise. I recognise the Secretary of State's embarrassment about the announcement on the poll tax made in the Budget. I would have been more impressed by his personal position if he had not so vehemently argued that Scotland's complaint was entirely bogus until the llth hour.
Today's announcement is a small mercy indeed when measured against the disaster brought by the poll tax. Yet again the Secretary of State is trailing lamely at the rear, splicing this ex gratia scheme on to an already impossibly complicated system. It is a recipe for a continuing sense of injustice in Scotland.
May I ask the Secretary of State some specific questions? Is it true that he made no attempt to obtain additional funds from the Treasury? If not, why not? If the Chancellor was not contributing, why did the Secretary of State have to go cap in hand for permission to correct a basic injustice from his own resources? Is it not nonsense to pretend that an underspend on a planned target is anything but a cut?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that transitional relief must be calculated before entitlement to the ex gratia

scheme can be settled? Does not that mean that no one will see the colour of the Secretary of State's money for some months? When does he think that payment is likely?
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has decided to calculate the percentage rebate entitlement for 1990–91 and apply it to last year's poll tax figure, will he consider an alternative? Would not the best option be to calculate the sums due to applicants in the last week of 1989–90 on the assumption that the new scheme applied then, and calculate last year's total payment on that basis?
The Secretary of State has been careful to stress that the cost will be up to £4 million. Was not the value of the concession greatly exaggerated by the Government, and, from all the indications, it is not clear that the likely payments in Scotland in total will be less than £2 million and that well below 15,000 people will benefit? Will not the average annual payment be well under £100?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the fundamental difficulty is that the scheme, which in effect is being extended to cover 1989–90, does little to help that vulnerable group with modest savings and limited income, perhaps boosted by a small occupational pension? Is it not true that in the coming year a pensioner couple in Glasgow with a basic state pension of £75·10 and a works pension of £15 who have a combined capital of £15,000 will be left to find the full poll tax of £12·18p a week without any form of help? Can he confirm that a single person aged 50—for this purpose again living in Glasgow—who has recently lost his job, is in receipt of unemployment benefit of £37·35 and has capital of £11,000 derived from his redundancy payment will not receive any rebate even when the scheme is in place? In the coming year, such a person will pay 16 per cent. of basic income in poll tax because of the assumed income of £4 a week for every £1,000 of savings above £3,000.
May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that, this time at least, he will stir himself to push for necessary change? May we have the floor level of £3,000 increased to a realistic figure to reduce the taper, or at least have the tariff income, which assumes a return on capital of 21 per cent., brought down to a figure that an investor might receive from a bank or building society? Is there not a pressing danger that, if the scheme remains as it is, for thousands hope will turn to dismay and disappointment and then to anger?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome for the statement and for the speech that followed. I shall respond first to his question about additional funding.
I did not seek additional funding, and I shall explain why. The Chancellor's statement on the increase in the capital limits applies throughout the United Kingdom—to Scotland as well as to England and Wales—and community charge payers in Scotland will receive the same full benefit as charge payers in England and Wales. The additional provision that I have announced today applies to the past 12 months. Those who paid community charge in Scotland but had savings of more than £8,000 may now get a refund, whereas ratepayers in England or Wales, whose rates may have been higher than the community charge in Scotland and who did not receive a refund, will not be entitled to any payment. It seems, therefore, that if I propose a scheme which is limited to those making payments in Scotland, it is not unreasonable that I should


administer it from within the Scottish Office. That is a matter of principle and is appropriate in the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I needed to discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my other right hon. Friends, when normally the Secretary of State has full discretion about how he uses his funds. That is a prefectly fair question. I have complete discretion on how I use funds for the normal purposes for which the Scottish Office is responsible. However, when I am considering the use of certain funds for a policy issue which does not normally come within the responsiblilty of the Scottish Office and which will be properly interpreted as a change when compared with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only two days earlier—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The Opposition have been out of office for a long time and I appreciate that they may not be able to recollect easily the normal conventions that operate within government. When a Secretary of State proposes to make an announcement which is not in accordance with a statement made by the Government 48 hours earlier, it would be seen at least as a matter of normal courtesy to discuss it with colleagues, as each Minister speaks on behalf of the whole Government.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the actual refund that will be paid will be a percentage of the sum paid by the community charge payer in the last year. He asked why it could not be calculated on the basis of the payments made in the final week of the year. That is the suggestion that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made in discussions with the Scottish Office. It is an interesting question. The consequences of adopting COSLA's approach could be bizarre. If a person's savings and earnings in the 52nd week of the year were significantly different from the rest of the year, the refund paid might be greater than the total community charge payment of the individual for the year in question. That would be an absurd outcome, which the hon. Gentleman would not want to acknowledge.
The hon. Gentleman queried the number of people who might benefit in Scotland and the consequential cost as a result of the proposals. Our figures are the best estimates and are provided by the Department for Social Security. No one can say for certain what the figure will be. The best estimates are the figures of 15,000 to 20,000 people leading to a cost of up to £4 million. If it is less or greater, it will be accommodated within the scheme. Time will tell. It depends on the number of people who apply under these arrangements.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back-Bench Members today, I must say that I understand that yesterday there was concern that some were not called following the statement, although I did call all those who were adversely affected. As this statement is welcomed by the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and bearing in mind the constraints on time as again we have to debate a timetable motion, in order that as many hon. Members can be called as possible I ask hon. Members to put one question and the Secretary of State to answer one question.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we on this side of the House welcome without any grudging his

remedying of this unfairness? Does he further accept that he could avoid all this debate about where the money comes from to pay for this if he would only take it from his overspend?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure whether I follow my right hon. Friend to his conclusion. He will recall from his days in the Scottish Office and other Government Departments that during the financial year there is always underspending on particular programmes and as a consequence supplementary allocations are made to other programmes. When underspends are identified, as they always are, we have already identified that which will be the first call on that underspend.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the numbers may not be as great as he anticipates? The earnings rules could well mean that many people with capital up to £16,000 will still not qualify. It looks as if the administration of the scheme will take up a substantial part of the £4 million and will probably be more than the actual delivery.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the decision by the English Department to offer revenue support grant in advance to English and Welsh authorities although he is not doing the same for Scottish authorities? That will further increase the poll tax this year in Scotland compared with England and Wales by £3·50 per head.

Mr. Rifkind: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I have to say that we will have to wait to see what the numbers are. He is wrong about the administrative cost. The scheme that I propose is administratively simple, because people will be applying for benefit for the year that is just beginning in any event and the same application will be made. All that they will be required to identify is their community charge payment for last year, and a simple formula will determine the sum that has to be paid.
The hon. Gentleman is under a misunderstanding about the other matter that he raised. We have already discussed with COSLA the question whether there should be front-loading of payment of revenue support grant. We are awaiting a paper from COSLA about whether and, if so in what way, it would like to see the payments changed. It has made no such request in the past. We have said that we are quite willing to discuss the matter with COSLA and to respond constructively if it puts forward reasonable proposals.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that in Scotland the community charge raises only 20 per cent. of local authority expenditure, whereas in England it raises 30 per cent.? Before the Opposition stand on their consciences and ask for fairness, they should be reminded that if they want fairness for Scotland they should be screaming for fairness for England.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that the average contribution of community charge payers is lower in Scotland than the average in England. Of course these averages vary from place to place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which is not surprising. Therefore, within Scotland and England a range of contributions is made by community charge payers depending on the social and economic circumstances of the locality in question.

Mr. John McAllion: How can the Secretary of State's scheme address the original injustice done to Scotland when neither the Chancellor nor the Prime Minister have moved an inch from their respective positions on Budget day? There will not be a penny of extra Treasury cash for Scotland. The whole amount is to be found from within the Scottish budget and from areas where that £4 million might otherwise have been expended. If this is the best that the Secretary of State can do from within the Cabinet, it is time that he got out of the Cabinet by tendering his resignation now.

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the latter comment must be a crucial part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall deal with the more substantive element. The hon. Gentleman keeps changing the story. The concern expressed was whether the relief in terms of savings that has applied from day one in respect of community charge payers in England and Wales should also be available for those who have been paying the community charge in Scotland for the past 12 months. The scheme ensures that that will be the case.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this scheme is another example of how the Prime Minister and the Government respond generously to Scotland, as they have done for the past 11 years? That was recognised on 19 March, when there was not a single demonstrator outside the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh when we discussed the community charge. That clearly shows that the Scots have now understood that the community charge is fair.

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have consistently shown that they are responsive to concern expressed in Scotland. The very fact that, within 48 hours, the Government were prepared in the face of criticism to respond to the concern shows that my hon. Friend's observation is entirely justified.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement to the House was brief. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the explanation that worries many of his hon. Friends and the Opposition. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to the charge that there seems to be a permanent pot of gold in the Scottish Office when any problems beset the Government? How does he reply to the charge that, as a consequence of the way in which this was done, it is more of a zig-zag than a U-turn? It is dangerous that for the first time in history a Secretary of State is inviting the Treasury to cut the budget of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting observation which no doubt will be listened to carefully by the Treasury. It will be grateful for allies, from whichever source they may come. The hon. Gentleman is an unlikely ally of the Treasury—but who knows? He has been a Minister and no doubt is aware of such matters. He knows as well as I do that during any financial year every Government Department finds that it requires less than it originally anticipated for particular matters and makes supplementary allocations elsewhere. All Ministers do that. Today I am simply identifying the target which will be the first charge on the underspends when they appear.

Mr. Allan Stewart: One accepts that, particularly at this stage of the financial year, there will be no difficulty in the Scottish Office finding £4 million from underspends and good housekeeping. However, for the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear that the timetable of the A77, the Ayr road route, will not be jeopardised by today's announcement?

Mr. Rifkind: Not only can I reassure my hon. Friend, but I can anticipate similar questions from other hon. Members on both sides of the House and give them the same unqualified assurance.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to eradicate another unfair anomaly arising from the fact that the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year ahead of England and Wales —that people in Scotland who receive income support receive no additional benefit to enable them to meet the additional burden of the poll tax? If the Secretary of State is incapable of persuading his Cabinet colleagues to give a backdated rebate to those people, will he join me in calling for the abolition of the poll tax, which is an absolute nightmare for many poor people and is fast becoming a nightmare for the Government?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Income support was increased for all recipients throughout the United Kingdom at the same time. The 20 per cent. rule, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, was introduced under the rating system in both Scotland and England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman's memory is failing him.

Mr. David Lambie: Now that the Secretary of State has made this change to the poll tax rebate scheme, which will benefit only a small number of people, is it not time that he considered the whole rebate scheme and introduced a 100 per cent. rebate instead of the present maximum of 80 per cent?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the community charge rebate or benefit scheme is a matter for the Department of Social Security. The fact that approximately one in three people in Scotland benefit from community charge rebates suggests that the scheme is widely applied. That is how it should be.

Dr. John Reid: This is one of those rare parliamentary occasions when a new character enters the parliamentary and political folklore of Scotland—Malcolm the magician, a Scottish Office Minister who is apparently capable of conjuring vast amounts of money out of thin air. Let me ask the questions which many people will be asking the Secretary of State for Scotland. From where is the money coming, and who would otherwise have benefited from it? Does he expect people in Scotland to believe that he was in the Scottish Office contemplating the problem when he suddenly discovered £4 million in his hip pocket or that he had a piggy bank marked, "Chancellor of the Exchequer Mistakes Bank"? Will he come clean and tell us who will lose so that these other people may benefit?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary introductory remarks, which are entirely appreciated and, some might say, entirely appropriate, but it is not for me to speculate on that. With regard to the


substantive part of his question, I am responsible for a budget of £9,500 million. The likely maximum cost of the scheme will be £4 million—

Mr. Dewar: Two million.

Mr. Rifkind: If it is £2 million, it will be even less of a problem, but our estimate is up to £4 million. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not cause any loss of sleep for any Ministers in the Scottish Office and will not involve cuts in any programmes. I have already told the House,how the matter will be dealt with, so I shall not risk repeating myself in order to inform the hon. Gentleman further.

Mr. Alex Salmond: For the benefit of the House, can the Secretary of State tell us the precise moment at which the level of political panic became such that he decided that the protests were not bogus but legitimate? Why cannot he answer the simple question of where the £4 million would otherwise have been spent? Does he realise that a pensioner couple in his constituency on basic state benefit, with lifetime savings of £12,500, are liable for more poll tax than the Secretary of State for Scotland as an individual? Justify that to Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: First, the hon. Gentleman is straying into issues for which the Department of Social Security is responsible—the rebate scheme.
I do not know at this stage of the financial year which programmes will be underspent. What I do know is that every year, under successive Governments and in every Department of Government, there are significant underspends in programmes. Usually when they appear, one then decides where to use the resources. I anticipate only that the first call on such underspends will be the scheme that I have announced today. That is only right and proper, because it will involve a benefit for the people of Scotland that will not be available to those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, whose rates payments may have been higher than the community charge payments of those in Scotland who will receive funding under the scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is always anxious to be fair in these matters, will understand the strength of that argument.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ron Brown.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. English money goes to Scotland and English Members of Parliament are entitled to be called in the right order on a statement such as this.

Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Gentleman has disclosed what I hoped was a private message that I sent him, I must tell him that I will call English Members—this is a United Kingdom Parliament—but this statement concerns Scotland, and I propose to call Scottish Members first.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is that not yet another example of abuse of the television cameras in the House? That lamentable hon. Member wanted to be called before four and has just managed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we take no notice of the cameras—

Mr. Faulds: They are why the hon. Gentleman did what he did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members do not do that.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Richard Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been sitting here and have not sought to catch your eye, but I sit here regularly, as you know, and I want to know whether, in future statements by Secretaries of State from England, English Members will be called first, before Scottish Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not usurp the authority that has been given to me. I have said that I will call English Members, and I decide in what order they will be called.

Mr. Sillars: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall not object to your first ruling. I understand that you think that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but may we have your assurance that your decision to call English Members will have nothing to do with the spurious proposition that English money goes north of the border—because it does not?

Mr. Speaker: I am not concerned with spurious propositions.

Mr. Ron Brown: Despite the Secretary of State's gimmicks, is it not clear that there is a community charge in Scotland, and the charge is that the Government are oppressive and vindictive? That has been clear for some time, irrespective of the poll tax.
Even so, the guru of the Tory party, Adam Smith—a Scot—warned the Bourbons a long time ago that a capitation charge would mean revolution—and decapitation. The Government should be warned of that. The regional elections are coming up shortly. To the fore in those elections will be those who are wholly opposed to the poll tax. I only wish that the Labour party was 100 per cent. against it. I certainly am.

Mr. Rifkind: The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's rebuke of the Labour party and his perception that the Labour party lacks enthusiasm for the campaign against the community charge that it is currently waging. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman, who appears to be a convert to the views of Adam Smith, can put forward his views with his customary eloquence.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that this money will not be found through staff cuts in the Scottish Office? Is there not concern about the machinations of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has made that proposal?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance to that effect.

Mr. Mike Watson: Can you, Mr. Speaker, enlighten the House on whether there is any precedent for a Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Watson: Is there any precedent for the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box at a time when his party's support is on a par with the bank rate? That event is clearly connected with the fiasco of two weeks ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he expected 15,000 to 20,000 people would benefit from the change. That suggests an individual payment of about £250. Can he explain where that comes from? Is it not true that, in fact, the figure will be much lower, both individually and in total?

Mr. Rifkind: The precise figure will depend on the rebate to which the applicant is entitled for the financial year that is just beginning. For example, if he is entitled to a 50 per cent. rebate, that same percentage will be applied to the community charge that the applicant paid last year. It will vary depending on the personal circumstances of the individual concerned.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Budget debacle has damaged beyond repair his ability to represent Scotland in the Cabinet? We all know that he had to go cap in hand to the Prime Minister to obtain his concession. Can he confirm that he also had to go cap in hand to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not understand the question. If, on some other occasion, the hon. Gentleman would care to explain his question in slightly greater detail, at least I would understand it, even if I could not respond to it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Could the Secretary of State tell me—I promise not to tell anybody else—how he got himself into this mess in the first place? Why did none of his ministerial colleagues consult him? Why did no one tell him that the limit was being raised from £8,000 to £16,000? Why did he protest that the whole argument was bogus? Why has he turned cartwheels—which is not a pretty sight?
Now that the Secretary of State has such heavy influence with is ministerial colleagues, will he have the rebate scheme amended so that all entitlement to rebate is paid? We must get rid of the nonsense whereby, if the rebate is less than 50p a week, it is not paid. That is absolute madness. The work has been done on calculating the rebate, so it makes sense to pay it.

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that neither the Department of the Environment nor the Scottish Office was given advance notice because his announcement referred to social security benefits. Therefore, the Department of Social Security was the only Department informed. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we will draw the points that he made to the attention of the Department of Social Security.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is the Secretary of State embarrassed that the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the introduction of the community charge, has had her bill reduced from £2,200 to £750? Does he find it embarrassing when trying to explain that to the Scottish electorate? Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his new-found persuasive powers, does he still think that the community charge is a vote winner?

Mr. Rilkind: I certainly believe that those in Scotland who suffered heavily from the rating revaluation do not

wish for a return of the rating system. I noted the reaction of Labour voters to the Labour party's roof tax proposal. It showed that more than 80 per cent. of Scottish Labour voters believe that the roof tax would harm them and Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: It is said that the Secretary of State had to offer his resignation to obtain the Prime Minister's permission to spend Scotland's money in Scotland. Is he aware that during his darkest hour that evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), was stabbing him in the back on Scottish television? Is it not time that he asked the hon. Gentleman to resign and do the Tory party in Scotland a favour and Scotland itself an even better favour?

Mr. Rifkind: I always appreciate helpful suggestions from Opposition Members, but I cannot help but think that if Opposition Members are so anxious for my hon. Friend to resign, it must be because they consider him, rightly, to be a tremendous asset to the Conservative party in Scotland.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State take any pride in coming to the Dispatch Box like a skinny-ma-link warlock having got permission from the mistress of the coven to take some silver from one pocket and put it into another? Is it not a disgrace that he has to be dragged here to make a statement on the issue when, if there had been any violence in Glasgow on Saturday, he would have been only too pleased to come to the Dispatch Box to condemn the Scots? Is he not putting the Union in danger, and is it not a fact that on 3 May his party will be eliminated from the Scottish scene?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure what will happen to my party, but at least I am still a member of my party, which is more than the hon. Gentleman can say.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable concern in England and Wales that the Chancellor's Budget statement discriminated against couples? Does that discrimination also apply in Scotland?

Mr. Rilkind: I do not accept the premise that there is discrimination against couples, so I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Barry Field: Why is it that, the more melancholy the pibroch, the wider the British taxpayer's purse opens, giving the Scottish island ferries a substantial subsidy from British taxpayers when no other offshore islands in the United Kingdom receive such a subsidy? Why does Scotland have such a vice-like grip on the wallets of the British taxpayer?

Mr. Rilkind: Subsidies are given to Caledonian MacBrayne to ensure that the island communities remain viable. Any attempt to impose fully commercial tariffs on those services would soon lead to the depopulation of those islands. The same cannot be said for islands elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order in a minute.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I have difficulty rising in my place, but I have been doing so all afternoon because there is something that should be said. Is my right hon. Friend aware that during Scottish questions the Opposition have continually accused the Scottish Office and the Government of not listening and not caring? We have now proved that we listen and we have proved that we care in a positive way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be asking a question.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we have proved in a positive way that we listen and care? Is he not amazed that, despite that, the Opposition do nothing but grumble? Are they opposing for the sake of it, or is it just that there is no pleasing some people?

Mr. Rifkind: No, I am not amazed. I would have been amazed if the Opposition had behaved any differently.

Mr. John Maxton: If the Secretary of State is now responding to demands in Scotland, why does he not respond to the demands of 85 per cent. of the Scottish people and withdraw the poll tax altogether? If he is going down the road of making concessions under pressure, why does he not help those who are in genuine need as a result of the poll tax and ensure that he introduces 100 per cent. rebates, that he backdates all rebate claims to 1 April 1989 where they would have applied at 1 April 1989, and that he bases the transitional relief scheme upon the real poll tax figures, not the notional figures that he plucked out of the air when he introduced it? Would not that be a way of giving real help to the people of Scotland who are sorely oppressed by the tax?

Mr. Rifkind: It would be wrong to apply the transitional relief to local authority expenditure at whatever level local authorities choose to apply it. The purpose of a transitional relief is to provide support for those for whom the change in the system has led to increased bills, not for those who find that their bills have increased because their local authorities have decided to use the opportunity to increase spending substantially. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

Points of Order

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give the House some advice? I understand that this afternoon the Government are to present the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. It is proposed that the Bill should have its Second Reading on Thursday 19 April. That means that there will be effectively only two working days for the House to consider its attitude to the Bill. There is no secret about the matter; 80 Conservative Members are opposed to the Bill, and they may well find that they can ally themselves with the official Opposition.
There is a proper process by which we may discuss with the Opposition a reasoned amendment. The Bill is being pushed through the House and the opportunity of the Easter Adjournment is being used to try to abort such discussion. It is an abuse of the procedure of the House. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect us. We ask you perhaps to suggest to the Government that they might delay the Second Reading of the Bill for, say, a week. It will come into effect only in 1997. The British people, whose very nature is affected by the Bill, will not thank the Government if it is dealt with in a slipshod way.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, and he knows perfectly well that what he has said is not a matter for me. I do not organise the business in the House. I do my utmost to ensure that we get on to the business, as we are trying to do today. I cannot help the hon. Member. The Bill has not yet been presented, but with any luck, it will be presented in a few minutes.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the debate which we shall have later this afternoon on the Education (Student Loans) Bill. As a Back-Bench Member who is worried about the legislation, I seek your advice. I understand after a conversation with the Public Bill Office that Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which were passed by the other place by a majority of 98 to 51, will not be debated by the House because they would impose a charge on the public revenue.
Can you confirm that, Mr. Speaker, because the issue of housing benefit is critical for the student population? If that is the case, is it not possible for the Government to bring forward a new money resolution to enable us to ensure that students may have access to housing benefit? I quote the recent example of 21 February when the Minister of State, Scottish Office brought forward a new money resolution on the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill. Have you had such an approach from the Government, Mr. Speaker, or can you say whether there is a possibility of such an approach?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request from the Government to bring forward another money resolution. As the hon. Lady has raised an important point in which the whole House may be interested, may I say that I have looked carefully at it. I am satisfied that amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would impose a charge on the public revenue not authorised by a resolution of the House. Therefore, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendments must be deemed to be disagreed to.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a Secretary of State comes to the House and makes a statement which is palpably false, you would take a very severe view of it. Equally, if an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman accuses a Secretary of State of misleading the House, surely you would have the right to ask whether it can be substantiated. In a press statement, the shadow spokesman for local government accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of misleading the House over the administrative costs of the poll tax and the way in which the selection of capped local authorities was made. That is a serious allegation against my right hon. Friend, who is not here to defend himself. What action can you take, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that that matter may be properly aired in this House?

Mr. Speaker: It is frequently alleged that the House is being misled, but for a right hon. or hon. Member to be accused of deliberately misleading the House is a totally different matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) does not want to be too mealy-mouthed about the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard about the Vietnamese boat people, but are you aware, Mr. Speaker, of the Hong Kong plane people? Apparently, planeloads of Conservative Members have been sent to Hong Kong and are being sent to Hong Kong. I think that the name of Ian Greer Associates has been mentioned, but I might not be correct. The Conservative party's Whips Office has also been mentioned. A very important measure will come before the House as soon as right hon. and hon. Members return from the Easter recess. It is a matter of interest that certain Conservative Members have been wined and dined, and for all one knows—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not a member of this party, and I have no knowledge of these matters. I cannot see that they have anything to do with me.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my colleagues are totally incorruptible but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in the event that a right hon. or hon. Member makes an overseas visit relating to, or arising from, membership of the House, if the cost of such a visit is not wholly borne by the right hon. or hon. Member concerned or by public funds, an entry must be made in the Register of Members' Interests.
As to the involvement of the Conservative Whips Office, we are not sure whether the trips have been paid for out of public funds. I think that we ought to know to what extent they have or have not been paid for in that way.
You will also know, Mr. Speaker, that an entry must be made in the Register of Members' Interests within four weeks of the event. I understand that certain Members of Parliament are going this weekend, but the Second Reading debate will be taking place within about a week of their return. The House should know before right hon. or hon. Members vote on the Bill, or even speak on it, whether or not they have been on such a visit. It is a very important matter, and one that has created a great deal of controversy within the party and throughout the country. It is vital that the House should know which right hon. and hon. Members have been to Hong Kong and how long they spent there before they speak in the Second Reading debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of those matters. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will enjoy a very good Easter recess, but I have no knowledge of where they will be spending it.
However, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) makes a serious allegation against his hon. Friends. I am certain that if they participate in the Second Reading debate they will declare their interest in the normal way.

Mr. Marlow: I said that my right hon. and hon. Friends are incorruptible.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything can arise beyond that.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Although I accept the accuracy and validity of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that, on an important issue such as the granting of housing benefit to students, it will do great damage to the credibility of this House if students can see that it has done nothing to debate a matter crucial to them because of the Government's failure to introduce a money resolution?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is bound by Standing Orders, and I can exercise no discretion.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) did not concern a trivial matter, and the House should not be content simply to sweep it away. The Patronage Secretary is in his place, and he could come to the Dispatch Box and either confirm or deny the allegations. A very serious matter has been raised, and the Patronage Secretary has an opportunity now to clear it up.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have a heavy day ahead, and it is timetabled, so I hope that we can get on.
A propos the matter that has been raised, it is, of course, a serious allegation, and I said that. I equally said that I was certain that all hon. Members with an interest of that kind or any other kind to declare would declare it.

Sir John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make no charge of corruption against any hon. Member, but is there not the important constitutional point that, when a Bill of such importance as the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill is due to come before the House, it would be more seemly and in keeping with the traditions of this great parliamentary assembly, the home of democracy, for us to have more time to consider it before it is introduced?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a pont of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you that the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) were important because of the precedents. When people have been involved in treating, such matters have been debated and certain decisions taken.
I suggest that on this occasion the hon. Member for Northampton, North should put the facts in writing to you, as a matter of privilege—as should occur under the


new rules—and he should name names. Then, if the issue goes before the appropriate Committee, the Patronage Secretary should be brought before that Committee to explain his conduct in the matter.
I would only add that if so many Tory Members are going to Hong Kong on a free junket, they could do us and the country a service and not come back.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who has been to Hong Kong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—I registered that interest with the Registrar of Members' Interests, in the same way as my hon. Friend for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) registers his visits to the Iraqi dictatorship.

Mr. Robert Key: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I have not been invited to Hong Kong. Were I to be invited, surely that would help my understanding of the situation there. We are in danger of gross humbug. I regard hon. Members who visit foreign countries as people who become experts in the affairs of those countries. I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) when it comes to middle eastern affairs. I note that in the Register of Members' Interests it says that he visited Iraq in September 1989 for five days. It adds that the money came from Arab sources, and it has been alleged that it came from the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not have a debate on this issue. Wherever hon. Members go, I hope that they have a jolly good holiday.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I return to the point of order relating to the question concerning the Education (Student Loans) Bill. None of my hon. Friends would willingly be party to challenging the privilege that this elected House should have in respect of the expenditure of money. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use the time during the debate on the guillotine motion to reconsider your decision that Lords amendment No. 8 involves a question of privilege.
I believe that your ruling is based on your understanding that it involves the expenditure of new money. It does not. It involves a continuation of

expenditure already authorised by the House under existing legislation. While the Government have proposed that housing benefit should be removed from students, that legislation has not yet been approved by Parliament, so the existing statutory provision by which students are able to gain housing benefit stands.
That approval was given under a pre-existing money resolution, and in those circumstances it seems that no question of privilege arises, because the other place was simply asking that an authorisation already given by this House should continue. I realise that this is not something on which you can give an instant decision, Mr. Speaker, but I should like you to take time in the next three hours to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: As the House would expect. I have already done so, but I shall certainly reconsider it, and when I return later I shall make a pronouncement on the matter. We must move on now.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG)

Mr. Secretary Waddington, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King., Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Howard and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by selected Hong Kong residents, their spouses and minor children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Legal Advice and Assistance at Police Stations (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 487) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 488) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has already complained about the delay in the publication of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. A few seconds ago the Bill was presented to the House. I was told by the Vote Office a few minutes ago that we will still not be able to get copies of the Bill at the Vote Office until after 5 o'clock. That is quite ridiculous, and it is inhibiting the work of the House that we did not get the Bill yesterday. The Bill was printed yesterday. It has been presented to the House and it is not available. You should protect the interests of Opposition Members and of Back Benchers on both sides of the House in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that the Bill is available immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter. It is for the Minister responsible to ensure that copies of the Bill are available. I am sure that the hon. Member's voice will have been heard—at least, I hope so.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just given a First Reading to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. You may not know officially, but the House knows that the Second Reading is timed for Thursday 19 April. In other words, there will be a lapse of only two parliamentary days between now and then. Is it in order that such an important Bill should be provided with such little time for consideration between First and Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly in order. Whether the time available for hon. Members to study the Bill is sufficient is a matter for hon. Members to take up with the Government. It is not a matter for me. As was said earlier, it is perfectly true that two sitting days will elapse, but there are other days in the recess when hon. Members may have the opportunity to study the Bill.

Poll Tax (Abolition)

Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and for connected purposes.
I welcome this opportunity to introduce my Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988. There should be no misunderstanding about the poll tax. It was not the creation of any local authority or of my own authority, Coventry city council. The tax demands that the poorest, the young and the old should pay the same amount as a millionaire, a millionairess or the Prime Minister, and was spawned by the Government and by the Prime Minister, who will gain £2,000 a year with the imposition of the poll tax. It is an immoral Government measure which will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and it will impose untold hardship.
Hon. Members brought these facts to the Government's attention, but our pleas for compassion on behalf of the poor went unheeded. My attempt in July last year to introduce a referendum to prevent the poll tax becoming law was thwarted by the Government. If my poll tax referendum Bill had found its way on to the statute book, there would have been no demonstrations last Saturday and there would have been no violence, which I wholeheartedly condemn. Let there be no ifs or buts about that. The violence, looting and rioting which put at risk thousands of citizens and their families exercising their right to protest, and also the police handling of the affair demand a full parliamentary inquiry, and I call for that.
I condemn violence from any quarter—the violence of a parasitical minority and the violence contained in the many anti-social measures that the Government bring before the House of Commons and steamroller through it. Political thuggery or street thuggery—the product of their violence—is the same. There is no difference between the pain suffered as a result of being physically assaulted and the unbearable pain associated with the long wait for a hip replacement, or the excruciating pain that is suffered when someone is denied treatment for gall stones or kidney stones. The poll tax can be classified only as political thuggery and it will hit my poor constituents hard.
Only four of the Coventry city wards have less deprivation than the country's average. The contrast in the life styles of Coventry's citizens becomes apparent if one flies across the city in the Goodyear airship, as I did. In the south-west of the city—Kenilworth road and the surrounding area where the beneficiaries of the poll tax live—one sees large houses and vast green spaces, undisturbed by factory buildings, and one private swimming pool after another. In stark physical contrast—diametrically worlds apart—are the densely packed housing areas of Foleshill and Wood End, where homes jostle with factories and industrial estates. That is where the poll tax losers live.
In my constituency, every ward has more poverty than the average for the whole country. Foleshill and Wood End head the list. They have the highest unemployment, the greatest overcrowding, the greatest number of pensioners living alone and the greatest number of single-parent families. Moreover, Foleshill has the greatest number of families who have come from the New Commonwealth. Even a visit to the swimming baths puts a severe strain on their meagre incomes.


Two years ago, those impoverished citizens could claim a full rent and rate rebate. They could obtain grants for essential household items. Today, even the poorest must pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. They shiver through the winter months, unable to heat their homes. Some even die from hypothermia. They cannot afford good food and good clothes. They are forced to go, cap in hand, to loan sharks to borrow money, or they are forced to take out a loan from the usurious Tory Government.
My poor constituents will be unable to pay the poll tax. It would be irresponsible of me to accuse them of being tax dodgers who are forcing an extra tax levy on the rest of Coventry's citizens. The blame for that must rest squarely on the Prime Minister's shoulders. The Prime Minister and her Government are the real tax dodgers in a quite personal sense in that they are the poll tax gainers.
I should be guilty of an even greater degree of irresponsibility if I supported the poll tax and its draconian legal penalties, and I should be culpable of gross irresponsibility if I ignored my constituents' plight. The poll tax is an obscenity. It requires a depraved mind, capable of the most perverted reasoning, to vindicate a tax which exacts the same amount from the poor as from the rich. My constituents are affected by such extremes of wealth and circumstances. That is why I have decided, after a great deal of thought and after carefully examining my conscience, to refuse to pay the poll tax. As an elected representative, I did not take that decision lightly and I do not put pressure on my constituents to follow my example, but if they wish to take part in a non-violent campaign they will have my support.
There comes a time when every elected representative must examine the morality of his or her actions—and the poll tax is the pinnacle of immorality. There is an old socialist saying that it is better to break the law than to break the poor, and I support that. That is why I seek to change this anti-social law and why I bring my repeal Bill before the House. It provides for the use of a referendum as a means of bringing about that change, which has the support of 75 per cent. of the population, as any democratic Government would recognise. That is why local authorities can give the Government a lead on this, especially the 20 which have been poll tax-capped. They could hold their own referendum. They could be given a mandate by their electors.
That is why I call on my own authority, Coventry city council, to be in the vanguard. Coventry city council conducted a citywide referendum on the rates on 27 August 1981. I now call on it to hold a referendum on a far graver issue—the poll tax. With the assistance of Coventry and other local authorities, I hope that we shall be able to wipe the poll tax off the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr.

Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

POLL TAX (ABOLITION)

Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unanimous support for the repeal of the poll tax which has been shown in the House today, I suggest that we move on to all the succeeding stages of this Bill so that we can carry it and satisfy the people out there, the electorate who want to get rid of it, and I so move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not in order. A day has already been named.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that on the Bill that we have just had, to which there is the strongest possible opposition among some Government Members, no one moved against it or spoke against it, although the duty Whip was heard to say that he had never heard such nonsense in his life? Would he not have liked to get up and argue why he regarded the measure as nonsense, so that we could have a decision here and now about where Parliament stands?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I need say is that what has occurred has been quite in order.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was here and heard my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) move his Bill, and it was supported by the House. Have you had any suggestion that hon. Members on the Government Benches were prevented from speaking against the Bill because of the embarrassment to the Government if the Bill were passed today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot debate the matter now.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are anxious to get on to the important business before us. We do not want to fool around with something that will never become law anyway.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to do just that. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her help.

Education (Student Loans) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2.—(l) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
I will begin by setting out why I believe that it is right to ensure orderly and sensible debate on the Lords amendments. First, as several hon. Members pointed out yesterday, this is a comparatively short Bill. Secondly, it has had lengthy and thoroughly comprehensive discussion in both Houses. All the issues before us today have been exhaustively debated and we now have to take decisions. Thirdly, the great majority of the amendments are either those in which the Government have responded positively to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as in the other place, which I hope will be acceptable to the House for that reason, or technical amendments. We are therefore demonstrating that the Government have responded to debates and we have reached the wrap-up stage.


I am sure that the motion is realistic and practical for the proper dispatch of business and that it will commend itself to all my hon. Friends and to most Opposition Members, if they are honest, because it does not impress anyone to delay returning to our constituencies for the recess by arguing pointlessly through the night on minute technical details.
I will elaborate on that. We have given the Bill substantial attention. This House and another place have together devoted some 90 hours to debate a Bill of four clauses and two schedules. That total includes about 40 hours in Standing Committee. More than 360 amendments have been tabled, half in this House and half in another place. More than 120 amendments were tabled in the Standing Committee, which then considered about 80 of them.
Those statistics totally refute any suggestion that the Government deliberately kept the Bill short in an attempt to prevent discussion on the finer points of the scheme. There has been every opportunity to explore all the principles, objectives and details of the scheme, down to the finer points of administration. There has been more discussion about detailed administration on the Bill and the scheme than on many other measures going through the House.
At the same time, there is recognition now that the format of the Bill has the great merit of flexibility of operation hereafter. It is understood that, as with the student grants maintenance scheme, from time to time there is obviously a need to change the details. We have said that we may wish to review the scheme, and from that review we may wish to change some of the details. Clearly, it makes sense to do that through secondary legislation rather than primary legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that there would be less debate and fewer amendments if the Government had been much clearer and more detailed in the first place about what they were proposing? Is not one of the reasons why a short Bill has taken a relatively long time the fact that the Government have said so little about so much?

Mr. MacGregor: Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have deliberately tried to be helpful to both Houses in responding to all queries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that. We have been getting on with the detailed preparation of the Student Loans Company and at each stage we have reported to the House on the arrangements. We have therefore been clear with the House. The debates have been very thorough and have covered all points. The Bill has gone through reasonably quickly because it is a short Bill on a single scheme, but there has certainly not been any shortage of discusson in the process.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): Will my right hon. Friend devote some time to the fact that this is only the fifth time in the history of our nation that a guillotine has been applied to Lords amendments? It is a very new process which only started in the parliamentary Session before last. Will my right hon. Friend justify how it is constitutionally right to predetermine how long we take to discuss amendments raised in the second Chamber of a bicameral system?

Mr. MacGregor: I was trying to explain why I think that the motion is right in relation to the Bill before us, and I believe that I have support of the great majority of my hon. Friends.
There have been a number of changes to the Bill a s it has progressed through both Houses. That bears witness to the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The changes fall into three categories. The first relates to technical amendments which were tabled in another place and, by and large have followed from further consideration of the details of the Bill in the light of debates in both Houses. The second category relates to changes of a detailed nature in response to points made by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members and includes all those relating to parliamentary procedure as well as to clarification of points such as the balance between grant and loan. The third category relates to a few points of substance. I cite, in particular, changes made—not always on the face of the Bill, because that was not necessary—in relation to increases in access funds and the disabled. Those amendments were in response to points made frequently in debate. Both issues have been thoroughly debated in both Houses and in Standing Committee. All the arguments have been held, all the issues have been debated, and we have accepted some additional points. That is all that has happened.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As the measure went through the House of Commons at a fairly leisurely pace, and there was ample opportunity to discuss it in Committee and on the Floor of the House, why were none of the amendments dealt with initially? Why have they all been made in another place, apart from a couple of technical amendments which were adopted in Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: It is because the Government were listening very carefully. In a number of debates in the House, we made it clear that we were listening and considering what to do. In the light of that consideration, some of the same points were made in another place and we decided to table certain amendments. I assure the House that the debates in this House as well as those in another place persuaded us of the value of those amendments.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I am keen to get on so that we can get down to debating the amendments, but I will give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Am I right in believing that my right hon. Friend accepted the amendments allowing access funds for the disabled?

Mr. MacGregor: We have increased the access funds by a further £10 million—I shall return to that later—and we have made some amendments to assist the disabled in repayment of loans. We have also made some proposals which do not have to be on the face of the Bill but to which I referred in answer to a parliamentary question.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps the Secretary of State has given way to me because of my natural Scottish reserve and reticence, but in the context of the balance between grant and loan, will he spell out in detail the implications


of that balance for Scottish students who undertake the four-year honours course, which is the most common course in Scotland?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady knows that that matter has been debated in the House. She and I had exchanges on it during Question Time. We have made it clear that we intend to extend the time for repayment of loans of five years' duration or more, but not those of four years. I made that clear in answer to a parliamentary question in the House.
I pay tribute to the sterling work done in Committee and in another place. Hon. Members on the Standing Committee devoted a lengthy period to the most careful analysis of the Bill. My hon. Friends played a particularly noteworthy part in achieving changes of substance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was a persistent advocate of the need for an increase in the access funds. We listened carefully to his argument and others and I hope that he will be pleased with our response. I also pay tribute to the Government spokesmen in another place, the Earl of Caithness and Baroness Blatch—we have before us the fruits of their labours.
Although we are approaching the final stages of the Bill, it is important that we do not engage in pointless repetition. The motion, if passed, will help to ensure that the scheme is ready for the beginning of the next academic year. We shall need to place regulations before Parliament soon, and additionsl preparatory work will be needed before the scheme is fully operational. Students will benefit considerably from the additional resources made available through top-up loans, and many students would not welcome being denied a loan as a result of filibustering. It is therefore right that we deal with the Lords amendments in a businesslike and proper fashion, without pointlessly spending much time throughout the night on technical details.
I have no doubt that the motion will give hon. Members the opportunity to raise wider issues, but I will briefly record one or two points about the Bill. The objectives of the Bill are to facilitate the expansion of higher education, in particular by providing more money to students while they are studying and, over time, to lighten the burdens of student support and maintenance support on taxpayers and parents.
The Anderson committee envisaged an eventual expansion of the higher education system to about 175,000 students, but in 1990–91 we expect that there will be more than 450,000 mandatory award holders and more than 1 million students in total. We are committed to continuing that expansion. The cost to the taxpayer of supporting students' living expenses has risen from £236 million in 1962 to £623 million this year at current prices, without taking account of inflation.
Loans will relieve the burden on parents and taxpayers and will give students access to more money. They will be able to use part of the high income that they can expect as graduates to borrow from the taxpayer and to repay the loan when their income rises. The loan will be at a zero real rate of interest, which is much more favourable than commercial borrowing terms or the loan schemes operating in most overseas countries.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the guillotine motion, but the Secretary of State is making a Third Reading speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The motion lends itself to relatively wide debate.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with the guillotine. No doubt the speeches of other hon. Members will go rather wider than the motion. It is right briefly to place on record some of the key points.
The loan scheme will be more favourable than those in operation in most overseas countries. Moreover, graduates whose incomes, for any reason, are low, will be able to defer repayments. Deferments will be available to those on incomes below 85 per cent. of the national average. If the scheme were in operation, graduates could defer if they were earning less than £11,500. Deferment answers arguments that the scheme penalises those who choose a lower-paid occupation and women who choose to bring up a family. The deferment arrangements mean that they are not penalised. Top-up loans will more than compensate most students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the benefits received by student claimants would have averaged £315 in 1990–91. That is more than outweighed by the loan.
We recognise that there will be circumstances in which further help is needed, and there will be three access funds, currently worth £25 million in total. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), we have added a further £10 million to provide discretionary support to students where it is needed to enable them to join or to remain on courses. The funds will be administered by the students' own educational institutions, which are best placed to assess their students' circumstances.
Differences in accommodation costs—this is an important point that I should like to make clear, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, who asked about it—were taken into account in the distribution of the access funds to the Universities Funding Council and to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The Government wish the councils to have regard to the same factor in making allocations to their institutions. This autumn, students will have access to a 25 per cent. increase in resources compared with current grant if we pass the amendments and the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The grant will be uprated in the autumn and loans will make available £178 million in addition to grant. We estimate that students in scope of loans would have been able to claim only £68 million in 1990–91. The net increase to students' budgets from the autumn should be £135 million. That is a mark of the scheme's generosity. Under the scheme, there will be progressive reduction in the real value of the parental contribution. When the scheme reaches maturity, parents in comparable circumstances will eventually pay little more than half the present contribution. The scheme offers parents a real benefit. That is why it is important to get on with the Lords amendments and to pass the Bill. The loan will not be means-tested. It will therefore be a valuable resource to the 40 per cent. of students whose parents do not make the full assessed parental contribution.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You must consider whether the Secretary of State is still in order—

Mr. Alan Amos: This has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes: I am asking Mr. Deputy Speaker to consider this point. The motion is to guillotine or to timetable debate. It therefore precludes debates on a range of issues being taken separately. If they were taken separately, the points that the Secretary of State is now making could be made in those debates. This is a timetable motion. It surely cannot be right, instead of the House having the opportunity to debate the 17 Lords amendments, for the Government to use the guillotine and the limited time that they have made available to make their case, which they ought to make point by point in each of the debates. That is an abuse because it is substituting a timetable for proper ordered debate of different issues. It surely matters not whether it is the Secretary of State or the newest Bank Bencher who uses that procedure.

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point?

Mr. Pawsey: Yes. Do you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the interventions made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underline the necessity for the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, the motion lends itself to relatively wide debate. I note that the Secretary of State is referring regularly to the Lords amendments with which the House will deal later. It seems to me that he is giving the background to the Lords amendments. How long the House takes on the motion is a matter not for the Chair but for the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I am anxious to get on, which is why I have not referred to matters such as housing benefit, as I suspect that other hon. Members will. I want as much time as possible to be given to the Lords amendments. The point that I am making, succinctly and briefly, is that it is important to deal with the Lords amendments as quickly as possible so that we can progress and so that the benefits of the scheme can be available to students.
It has frequently been argued that loans will inhibit entry into higher education. We have had long debates on that, but it is clear that, in general, countries with long-established loan schemes have a higher proportion of their young people in higher education than we do. Nor is there any sign that loans have deterred people from less prosperous backgrounds or from ethnic minorities from entering higher education.
We have carefully considered all the alternatives to the scheme presented to us, but I believe that they do not bear scrutiny. Providing additional resources as grant rather than a loan is simply not an option. Expenditure would continue to rise as the number of students increased, whereas the Government scheme reduces public expenditure in the medium term as repayments mount up.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have forborne rising previously but, with respect, this is an abuse of the procedures of the

House. I once attempted to make a similar speech to the Secretary of State which had nothing whatever to do with a guillotine but everything to do with the substance of the Bill concerned and was rightly called to order. I suggest that the Secretary of State's speech is wholly out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point. I can add nothing further.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall make one last point, and I am entirely following your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have set out elsewhere the arguments against repaying loans through an additional national insurance contribution or through some form of graduate tax. I note how—including during debates in the other place—the advocacy of those options has faded away. We have given the scheme and the Bill thorough examination and the Government have accepted a considerable number of the Lords amendments. That is because, in the light of the discussions in this House and the other place, it has been right to do so. I have already explained that the amendments are either in response to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House or technical amendments. Later, we shall debate two subjects on which I shall make it clear that we should not accept the Lords amendments. I emphasise that the majority are in response to points that have already been made.
The debates in this House, the other place and outside have shown that there is more widespread acceptance of the principle that
the beneficiaries of higher education should make a financial contribution towards it.
Those are the words of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. We are simply putting in place a scheme of loans to supplement maintenance grants which most other similar countries already have. Both our levels of student maintenance support and the terms and conditions of the loans are more generous than theirs. The Bill will benefit from the changes that we are proposing to accept as a result of parliamentary debates. Now it is necessary to get on so that we can put the scheme in place in good time to enable students to get the 25 per cent. increase in resources that we are making available. That is why I commend the motion to the House.

5 pm

Mr. Jack Straw: This guillotine motion is wholly without merit or justification. There has been no filibustering on the Bill. The motion is a simple abuse of power by an authoritarian and once all-powerful Government who are now in an advanced state of disorder and decay. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State spent 15 of the 20 minutes of his speech wholly outwith the terms of the motion, reading from a press notice about the alleged advantages of the loans scheme. He knows that the motion is unworthy of him and his office. Although the motion is an act of power, it conveys no strength, but rather the weakness of a Government who are afraid of argument and are trying to deny, even to themselves, the consequences of what they wish to force through.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills ( Mr. Shepherd) rightly and courageously said that, until two years ago, there had never been a precedent in the history of this House for any Government to seek to guillotine a Bill in the Commons during consideration of Lords amendments. The record of this Government, even with a majority of 100 over every party combined, is the record of


a Government who are unwilling to listen and almost incapable of listening to arguments with which they do not agree.
The only other Government with a similar majority—the Labour Government of 1945–51—introduced only three guillotines. The Conservative Government of 1951–64 managed just 15 and the Labour Government of 1974–79, who had a majority of just one and at one stage had no majority, managed 11 guillotines. This Government in less than two years have managed to guillotine 12 Bills. There has been no necessity for almost any of those guillotines.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I shall give way in a moment.
As is well known, last Wednesday the Opposition were told through the usual channels that the Bill would be guillotined. That announcement would have coincided with the last day of consideration of amendments and Third Reading in the other place, so in a cynical and squalid manoeuvre typical of the Government, that guillotine motion was withdrawn in order to lure their Lordships into the belief that the Government would at last play by the rules. As the Bill has now passed its stages in the Lords, the motion is being reintroduced in this House at the shortest possible notice to the Chamber.
The motion gives us three hours to debate the guillotine and no more than two and three quarter hours to debate 15 of the 17 amendments passed by their Lordships. We have no time to debate the most critical amendments of all, those on housing benefit. I earnestly hope, as do all Opposition Members and, I dare say, many Tory Members, that, in the light of representations and as no privilege arises because the expenditure has already been authorised by the money resolution, Mr. Speaker will agree also to allow debate on those amendments. Even taking only the 15 amendments, the time allocated for debate amounts to no more than 10 minutes per amendment. The Secretary of State made the audacious claim that to allow this debate to continue unguillotined would lead to what he described as pointless repetition. Some of the serious and significant issues raised by their Lordships, some of which have never been debated in the House, deserve rather more than 10 minutes of discussion.
There is the issue of whether there should be consultation and who should be consulted on the new courses to be made the subject of the loans scheme. There is the major issue of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. There is the issue of the new powers taken for this authoritarian Government to force university and college administrations against their will to co-operate with the measure without adequate compensation. There are amendments on disabled students which may have all-party support, but which certainly deserve proper consideration.
There are amendments on the marketing and canvassing of loans to students or potential students under 18 and on the disclosure and sale of information belonging to the Student Loans Company. That raises the question of the circumstances in which the Student Loans Company could be privatised, as the Under-Secretary of State has

promised will happen, and whether that privatisation could take place with the sale of the information that the Student Loan Company has.
The House has never discussed two key issues: the new controls over the institutions and loans to under-18s. Yet the Secretary of State treats the House with such contempt that he is willing to allow us only 10 minutes' discussion per amendment.
On 20 October 1989, The Times Educational Supplement reported a vision of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) about the Bill. Incidentally, he is the campaign organiser of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He said:
We are potentially into another poll tax scenario in which our MPs welcome the principle of loans without waking up until it is too late to the practical repercussions".
Most Conservative Members are not so much asleep as in a trance. They are transfixed and rendered incapable by the desperate prospect of defeat that inexorably comes closer every day. One word should awaken them from their trance, although whether it will I do not know. One word should make every Conservative Member with an ounce of self-interest and survival refuse to back this guillotine motion. One word should be sufficient warning to send them running, and that word is Baker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Straw."] It is Baker. This Bill has the curse of Baker upon it. [Laughter.] I am glad to see that Conservative Members laugh before the gallows.
The man who created teacher shortages on a scale never before seen, the man who collapsed teacher morale on a scale never before seen, the man who rendered Conservative education policies less popular than ever before and the man who invented the poll tax and then cut and ran is the same man who invented the loans scheme and then cut and ran. The mess that he leaves on this is no less than the mess that he left on the poll tax.

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for straying from the point and getting involved in a wide-ranging debate. What is he doing now, if it is not that? It is extraordinary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am applying the same rules to both Front Benches.

Mr. Straw: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest possible respect, I say that that is not the case, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was discussing education and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is discussing everything under the sun.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better for the House if hon. Members left those points to me and if we got on with the debate.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) should listen for once and take my advice. I am seeking to explain why it is in the interest of Conservative Members as well as of the Opposition to vote against the motion.
In this week's Sunday Times, there was a lengthy and well-informed article about how the Conservative party managed to sink ever deeper into the mire on the issue of the poll tax. It spoke about the authors of the loans


scheme, the guillotine motion and the poll tax. A ministerial colleague of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), was quoted as saying:
Baker was clever enough to see the problems but ambitious enough to overlook them.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are rightly allowing a wide-ranging debate on this matter, but when an hon. Member starts to debate the community charge he is well out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is regularly mentioning the motion and is in order.

Mr. Straw: Not only was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley clever enough to see the problems of the poll tax but he was clever enough to see the problems of the student loans scheme. In both cases he was ambitious enough to overlook those problems, knowing that he would not be around when they came home to roost. They have been left to the hapless and luckless present Secretary of State for Education and Science. More fool him for picking up the challenge.
Let us look at what the Secretary of State claimed in his speech for the loans scheme. He said that it was designed to "relieve the burden" on taxpayers. It will cost the Exchequer £750 million in the first three years and £2,000 million over the next 20 years. Because the money will disappear into a black hole of administration, default and deferral, the scheme will cost most students dear. Far from helping poorer people to gain access to higher education, the scheme will be an indiscriminate subsidy to the middle classes who need it least.
the arguments about access are … bogus."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 422.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). Those who need it most will be denied the greatest amount through the immediate loss of housing benefit, worth up to £400 or £500 in some cases, and by an immediate cut in the real value of the grant.
A scheme designed by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley to be run by the banks is now in administrative chaos. I shall quote from a piece of ancient history:
Baker wins bank loans for students".
The right hon. Member for Mole Valley persuaded an ever compliant Sunday Telegraph to write that just nine months ago. He did not win bank loans, because his hyperbole had no substance. The curse was working and the banks cut and ran, ready to risk the fizz and fury of the Prime Minister to protect their market share.
Conservative Members should think again before voting for the motion, because they will be voting for the early introduction of a new nationalised corporation. Such was the desperation of the Government when faced with the collapse of Baker's scheme that they had to set up a new nationalised corporation to run it.
Like the poll tax, the loans scheme is morally offensive. It takes money from those who need it and gives money to those who do not want it, and it wastes millions in administration. It is born of that unique combination of arrogance and incompetence, the hallmark of the Government.
Walk carefully, do not wake the envy of the happy gods. Shun hubris",

wrote C. S. Lewis. This modern Conservative Government have walked carelessly and dealt carelessly with the lives of others. Through that arrogance, pride and haughty spirit, they have made careless decisions on the poll tax. on schools, on the Health Service and on student loans. They will pay for their hubris by nemesis, by crushing defeat, and the Education (Students Loans) Bill will play a major part in that defeat.
I once thought that the instincts for survival of the Conservative party went before all. If Conservative Members vote for the guillotine, it will prove not only that they will lose but that they want to lose and have lost the capacity and will to survive. I oppose the motion.

Mr. James Pawsey: We have listened to a somewhat unusual speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), suited more to the Palladium than to the House of Commons. We have heard the ritual moans about time and the ritual synthetic anger and references to an anti-democratic guillotine. I remind the Opposition that the guillotine record stays with them and that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introduced five in a day. He gave a new meaning to the expression "a bunch of fives". If there was a cup for successful guillotining, it would be held by the Opposition. They would have it firmly bolted to their mantelpiece, because they are the experts in guillotines. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, the great democrat, was at that time the great dictator, the arbiter of parliamentary time.
The debate and the time that it takes will be the real measures of the Opposition's concern. The quicker we start to debate the substance of the Lords amendments, the more time there will be for constructive discussion. It occurs to me, as I am sure it has occurred to my hon. Friends, that we have listened to all the Opposition arguments. We listened to them on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and we know just how feeble those arguments are. We know that the Opposition's case is discredited and I am certain that they will therefore seek to run the guillotine motion for the full three hours.
The justification for the measure is to be found in the need to attract more students in advanced education and to generate the new money that makes that possible. No hon. Member doubts that there must be a limit to the number of students that the taxpayer can support on the present grant-only basis. It is not possible to soak the taxpayer for every single penny. The loan is £420 and it is interest-free. It is not repayable until the student leaves university, commences employment and earns 85 per cent. of the national average wage. There will be no negative dowry, because we all know perfectly well that, if a woman chooses to start a family, she does not start to repay the loan until she starts to earn.
It has been argued inside and outside the House that high taxpayer support is necessary to guarantee a high level of admissions to advanced education. Since 1979, the value of the grant has steadily reduced, but despite that reduction, the number of students has increased by 200,000. Therefore, there is no case to answer that a reduction in grant equals a reduction in student numbers. Those 200,000 extra students help to underline two specific points: first, the success of my right hon. Friend's policies


on advanced education, and secondly, the fact that we have had success with our general education policies. There is no point in seeking to increase access to higher education unless the appropriate number of young people come from schools to take advantage of it and clearly that is the case in the United Kingdom. We have been successful in raising the standard and quality of state education.
I do not believe, as Opposition Members have said, that top-up loans will discourage those from blue-collar backgrounds from going into advanced education. Such people currently account for about 61 per cent. of the population, but they account for 21 per cent. of admissions to universities and 24 per cent. to polytechnics. Therefore, it seems that the present grant-only system has not been a conspicuous success for youngsters from blue-collar homes. They are the same young people who are prepared to borrow, and at commercial rates of interest, to finance a second-hand car and purchase video equipment, and will certainly borrow to facilitate their education, which, in turn, will assist them to attain a better standard of income once they have gained their degree. Those Opposition Members who say that they will not actually patronise young people. Young people going to university seem to have more common sense than some Opposition Members who argue that point.
I do not know what will happen when Mr. Speaker rules on the question put to him by the hon. Member for Blackburn, but I should like to briefly touch on the subject of social security benefits, because they are relevant to the matter under discussion. The estimated value of social security benefits likely to be claimed by each eligible student in 1991 is about £300, but the top-up loan is £420. Therefore, there is a substantial increase in the resources being made available to students.
I see little virtue to the taxpayers in student loans and social security benefits being made available at one and the same time and to one and the same beneficiary. Most of those in receipt of social security benefits do not have the benefit of receiving a grant from their local authority to continue their studies. Students seem to be in a different category from most other claimants or recipients of social security. I am firmly convinced, as I am sure are my hon. Friends, that the Government's proposals will result in the great mass of students receiving more support in the form of a loan than they could have claimed in benefit.
I acknowledge immediately that some students will be worse off as a result of the changes. In their case, the level of benefit that they were receiving may have been higher than the £420 interest-free top-up loan, but—and this is a big but—such students will be able to turn to the access funds for help. Students currently claiming benefit receive about £68 million a year. The value of loans is £200 million a year. Therefore, it is clear that there is a substantial increase in the amount of resources being directed at students.
It is fair to remind the House of a point that was well made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, that next year resources for students will be increased by 25 per cent.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it not likely that many of those in receipt of housing benefit will probably live in

the sort of area where holiday work can be found and, therefore, they will not encounter difficulties in supplementing their income?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a genuinely important point, which I can reinforce by saying that my five sons who went through college all earned money during the vacation. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has told me that she went through university without the benefit of a grant and had to rely on loans on which she paid a commercial rate. Clearly, interest-free loans would represent a substantial benefit.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is that why the hon. Gentleman refused to pay his parental contribution for the five children whom he sent through college? I believe that that was what he told us in Committee. Obviously, the legislation is directed to help children who are in the same plight as his children were, but it is of no benefit to people from working-class backgrounds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In dealing with that point, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will bear it in mind that we are discussing the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you for reminding me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall, in due course, and in the friendliest way, take the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) outside and put him right about the points that he made. I have already mentioned the various benefits for young people from blue-collar homes. My five sons all received a parental contribution, but I did not make it up to the appropriate amount. My sons had to obtain work in order to get through college.
In debate after debate in the Chamber, I have called for the access fund to be substantially increased from the original figure of £15 million. I unreservedly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the substantial increase that he has announced. The House will be aware that the Government have increased the size of the access fund, designed to assist students who face financial difficulties, by £10 million. That is deeply appreciated, not just by Conservative Members, but right across the House. It will be of substantial benefit and assistance to many students. The total value of access funds stands at £25 million in place of the original figure of £15 million.
The three prongs of student support—loans, grants and access funds—will more than make up for any loss of benefit. Social security benefits are targeted where loans are not. Benefit targeting is not always effective, if only because the student's family circumstances are not taken into account and those parents well able to pay more towards their children's upkeep at college are not asked to do so. That comes back to the point made for me by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. The benefit system does not represent a good, reasonable or effective use of scarce resources or good value for taxpayers' money.
Some students live in accommodation provided by the institution. The rent currently charged reflects an element for the rates and, as those rates have been abolished and the community charge introduced, those students should receive a rent reduction equivalent to the saving made by the institution. Students should not be required to pay the


20 per cent. part community charge and maintain a contribution to the old rates system. In short, students should not be required to pay twice. The same applies to private landlords and I certainly hope that they will take that aspect on board. It will be grossly unfair and unjust if landlords do not reduce their rents by the amount of rates previously charged.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the lodging allowances board, which determines nurses' lodging allowances, has decided to reduce those allowances by the amount of the rates element? That is a good precedent.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted—

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must ask you what on earth the speech being made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) or the interventions in it have to do with the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already reminded the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) once of that. I am finding it difficult to relate his remarks to the allocation of time motion or to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Pawsey: You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I now bring my remarks to a close.
I want to see the Bill on the statute book because I believe that it will benefit students, parents and taxpayers—a trinity of opinion which, if not holy, is certainly important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Pawsey: What is the hon. Gentleman going to talk about?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am going to speak to the guillotine motion—

Mr. Pawsey: That will make a change.

Mr. Hughes: This motion adds a dangerous practice to a dangerous policy and I appeal to Conservative Members to be very careful about voting for the guillotine.
The Bill has had great difficulty even getting to this stage—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: It is not nonsense; I am about to give the House the evidence for my proposition.
On Second Reading in this House the Bill had a Government majority of 81. Some Conservative Members voted against it and others abstained. At one stage in Committee the Government has a majority of only one. Then we six Divisions on Report and the Government majority was never more than 73. In the Division on one of the amendments that my party moved, the Government's majority fell to 43.
On Third Reading, only 100 hon. Members supported the Bill. The majority was only 51—

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Not for a moment.
No guillotine motion curtailed debate on the Bill in Committee, although there was one delay—caused by the ending of the involvement of the banks, which suddenly disappeared in the middle of the Committee stage. The Chairman then accepted a motion for the Adjournment of the Committee because the basis on which the Government planned the scheme had suddenly been aborted by the banks deciding not to play ball.
Then the Bill went to another place, where there was much discussion about it. So bad did their Lordships find the Bill that they contemplated the almost unprecedented move of moving a motion to adjourn consideration before Second Reading because there was not enough of a Bill to debate. In the event, they took the almost equally unprecedented step of proposing a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. That is rarely done by their Lordships, who usually give Bills sent from this place an automatic Second Reading on the understandable assumption that, as an unelected Chamber, they should not question the principle of a piece of legislation. However, the reasoned amendment was tabled because there was so little in the Bill to question. The Bill was a hollow Bill—a sham.
In subsequent debates in another place, Members of the House of Lords on all sides—Government, Opposition and Cross Benchers—expressed their opposition to the Bill. Some of the most eminent and respected academics in the land opposed it. As a result, the Government suffered defeats on at least three substantial areas of policy. They were defeated on housing benefit. The other place decided that students should be entitled to it, not disqualified from it. The Government were defeated on the treatment of disabled students, on an all-party motion. And they were defeated on an amendment moved by my noble Friend Earl Russell, on the important constitutional principle that Parliament should not only automatically debate the secondary legislation—given that there is nothing in the primary legislation—but should also be able to amend it.
The great demerit of the Bill is that because the Bill itself contains no details—they will come only later—they cannot be amended by Parliament. We concede at our constitutional peril the precedent of making laws without being able to amend them.
Last week, when proceedings were about to finish in another place, the Government suggested that they would table a guillotine motion but then did not do so. The Leader of the House made it clear in answer to business questions that whether there would be a guillotine depended on what happened in the other place on Thursday last week. There were no further Government defeats that day, so nothing happened which might have affected the Government's decision.
We can therefore only conclude that the reason why there was no announcement of a guillotine in last week's business statement, and the reason for a business statement only yesterday announcing the guillotine, was that the Government wanted to hide from their Lordships the fact that, for only the fifth time in the history of the British constitution, debate on amendments made by the second Chamber was to be guillotined. Had the Government been honest, they would have let their Lordships know that fact. Their Lordships would not have been very pleased and might have caused some difficulty before giving assent to the Bill last Thursday.
The Bill therefore returns to us with a proposal that debate on it should be limited. There are only 17 Lords


amendments: 12 of them are Government amendments, one is an all-party amendment, one is a Labour amendment and one is a Liberal Democrat amendment. Two amendments have been disallowed, and if they continue to be so disallowed there will be only 15 left for debate—a maximum of 24 Divisions. Is that really justification for the Government to announce a guillotine, when there is still time before Easter for fuller discussion?
I did not hear one sentence in the speeches of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who chairs the Conservative Back-Bench education committee, advancing an argument justifying the guillotining of the Bill. We are therefore left in the following position. First, we are told that we cannot debate the view—there is a great deal of consensus on it—that students who have no money should be eligible for funds to pay for the housing that they need when studying. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the time comes you will agree to allow us to debate that matter, for the reasons that other hon. Members have already given—we have already voted the money for the implementation of the Bill and its consequential amendments. If the Bill and the money resolution on it do not provide the money, I understand that social security legislation would be able to do so instead.
Given the opposition to the Bill, it is clear that, if this place or the other place were fairly representative of the British people, the Bill would never have got this far. If the Government ignore the limited task of revising legislation that is performed by the unelected second House and do not respect their Lordships' arguments, the case for having a second House at all is seriously weakened. I do not support an unelected second House—it is an anomaly and we should have got rid of it a long time ago—but, I support a two-Chamber Parliament, with both Chambers having a reciprocal role and neither abusing the processes or role of the other.
The trouble is that, as this Parliament has gone on, and as the Government have continued in power—I say this with some sadness—an increasing succession of good people, among whom I include the current Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment, have one by one gradually given in to the authoritarian pressures imposed on them from elsewhere. I do not know whether, in this case, it is the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip or someone else, but there is no justification for Ministers to come, in equanimity and fairness, to this House to argue for a guillotine in these circumstances. There is no precedent that is justified or paralleled. There is no need for it. It is a gross discourtesy both to the issue and to the seriousness with which the other place tried to address these important matters. The guillotine is an exceptional procedure and it is exceptionally bad, and on constitutional grounds this sort of guillotine should be resisted at all costs.
This legislation contains matters of great substance and, some of us believe, of substantial risk to higher education. I listened to all the argument both in the Committee and outside, and I am not at all persuaded that the Bill does not threaten access to higher education for many people. If we threaten higher education, we threaten our future as a society. If at the same time we couple a threat to our future education with a threat to the

constitutional procedures under which we discuss legislation in the democratically elected Parliament of this land, we are doing a double disservice not just to the students of today and tomorrow, but to all our people.
I sincerely hope that we shall have no more of that and that there will be enough hon. Members of principle, on the Conservative as well as the Opposition Benches, to show the Government today that, whatever we think of the Bill, to treat Parliament in this manner is unacceptable, and that we shall vote the guillotine out.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have managed to catch your kindly eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a couple of occasions when we have debated guillotine motions. The way in which the Government now recklessly decide to guillotine almost anything that moves is of concern both to Members of Parliament and to those outside. We base our authority in this House on showing that there is consent for what is done. It therefore behoves us to argue, to reason and to win on that basis.
The history of this place shows that we have been extremely cautious about the use of guillotines. Indeed, it is a comparatively recent development. The Irish troubles necessitated the getting of business through the House and therefore the introduction of the guillotine. Governments were extraordinarily cautious of curtailing debate, because it is on the basis of debate that we assess that people outside will wear the legislation that follows. As two of my hon. Friends said in a similar debate last week, consent in connection with the poll tax should cause us to pause. Did we really assess that the people would wear that tax, regressive and unacceptable as it now appears to many of us?
As I said last week, between 1945 and 1951 there was perhaps the most radical programme in the history of this nation. I also said that I had had difficulty in identifying the use of the guillotine. However, with the help of the House authorities, I can now say that there were three guillotines. The years from 1951 to 1974 were politically contentious, and the battle moved backwards and forwards across the Chamber between Labour and Conservative. There was a total of 15 guillotines during that time. During the lamentable period from 1974 to 1979, there were only 11 guillotines, five of them on one day—as has been regularly pointed out and also acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the former Leader of the Opposition. However, a Government with a majority of nil, which is why I think that it was almost improper to use the guillotine, used it only 11 times during those years.
I shall not deal with the earlier years of this Government, but during the parliamentary Session 1988–89 they indulged in 14 guillotine motions on 10 Bills. That shows the level of what is happening. Among those guillotines was one on the poll tax legislation. I have written on the back of my cheque book—I regret to say—that this is only the fifth guillotine motion on Lords amendments in the history of Britain. Do we really think that is highly appropriate? Who searched out this new method of truncating debate?
I thought that it must be a socialist measure because the Labour party is not well disposed towards free speech, but not a bit of it—it is a Conservative measure. I seems that our party has taken the view that the House of Lords is


redundant and that we do not have to discuss their part in our procedures. We simply pay allegiance and say the correct words. Only two years ago, for the first time in the history of our nation, we truncated debate on Lords amendments. We do not have Indiana Jones who can dash to our rescue—instead, we have Guillotine Jones in the Whips Office who truncates anything that moves if it appears that we want to understand the reasons for the legislation.
We cannot prejudge the issues. I do not necessarily know how other people weigh them. Only by listening to their views can I arrive at a decision. Guillotine Jones has assessed the House pretty well. We want to go home, do we not? That is our principal duty. We want to be home by 10 o'clock. If there is one thing that the guillotine does, it is to ensure that we know when the vote will be called. I have said time and again that it is not in the interests of the party or of the Government to go for the guillotine because in the end we shall not signify as clearly as we should that the legislative measures have the consent of the population, based on reasoned argument. That is the assurance that we are seeking.
I plead with the Government to be cautious about the use of the guillotine. The scorn that we show for the process of free speech and debate in this Chamber will be seen as hubris and will come back on us. That is why I am speaking as clearly and as loudly as I can, as I did last Wednesday. The Secretary of State has given barely a reason for the guillotine. His speech referred to the merits of the legislation, if it is passed. I have to tell him that I have no doubt that the legislation will be passed. Our majority is one of the largest ever enjoyed by a British Government.
We do not doubt that the Government will have their way, but they will not even go to the politeness of saying that the debate can run on the reasoned amendments from another place. There is no big deal in that. In essence, we are being told that the merits of the debate in another place are not worth more than six hours. That is how we weigh up their Lordships. After all, they are only there through an accident of birth or by appointment and are not worth very much. They have become awkward in recent years—

Mr. Jackson: I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about this, and I respect that—we are all concerned about the issues—but if my hon. Friend is saying that the Government have no regard for the House of Lords, perhaps he could tell us how many of the amendments passed in another place the Government have accepted.

Mr. Shepherd: I understand that my hon. Friend is a member of All Souls, but I do not have to go to All Souls to know that that is a non-question and irrelevant to my point. The reckless pursuit of inhibition of free speech and debate on the floor of the House is not in our interests and we should be extraordinarily cautious in the use of guillotines.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have made an overwhelming case against the motion. I do not know whether anyone on the Government Front Bench is

treating those speeches in a derisory manner. The spokesman for All Souls apparently is—he should pay a little more attention to parliamentary procedures. Anyone who listened to those three speeches would have concluded that a powerful case had been made against the Government's motion.
Whenever we have a motion of this kind, reference is made to the guillotine motions that I introduced when I was Leader of the House. At least when I was Leader of the House I always took the precaution of moving the motion myself—I did not run away and leave somebody else to do it, as is becoming more and more the habit of the present Leader of the House. A week or two ago, when he failed to move a similar motion, saying that he was in Chile, the Patronage Secretary was brought along to do the job instead, but that was not satisfactory either.
We have had no apology today from those who run the business of the House for the Government. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the business of the House. The Government are so ready to introduce guillotine motions in the exceptional circumstances that have been described that they do not even trouble to ensure that the Leader of the House puts his case to the House of Commons. That alone is a disgrace.
There is no comparison whatever between this motion and the guillotines that I introduced. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, at that time it was a narrow House of Commons—only a few votes divided one side from the other—so without a guillotine in certain circumstances the Government would not have been able to get through any legislation at all, which would have been a frustration of parliamentary processes and utterly intolerable.
Some Conservative Members, including the spokesman for the Select Committee on Procedure, believe—it was almost implicit in what the Secretary of State said today—that we should have guillotine motions regularly and that this is a better way of getting the business through because we need not worry about time. Whenever I have spoken for or against guillotine motions, I have never favoured that view—for the reason that I have given before and which I repeat today. It is a matter of profound importance for the salvation, safety and future of the House of Commons as a great democratic assembly that the guillotine should be used only in rare circumstances. When it is resorted to, it should be argued for carefully before the House of Commons. That is the only circumstance in which I ever introduced a guillotine, and the only circumstance in which anyone who believes in parliamentary government should be prepared to do so.
The present Government, however, have thrown aside all those protections and precautions, and all consideration of the way in which parliamentary business should be carried out. More regularly than ever before in parliamentary history, either just before a Bill goes to the Lords or when it returns from there, the Government introduce a guillotine motion to curtail debate on the fag end of a Bill, at the very time when it should be the business of the House to consider what has been said in the House, in the other place and outside. The whole purpose of our procedure for Bills is that we take account of what is said outside.
The Secretary of State showed no consideration of those matters when he introduced the motion. He referred to the "wrapping-up stage"—a novel phrase in our parliamentary history. I should be glad if he would point


out anybody else who has referred to our consideration of Lords amendments as the "wrapping-up stage". According to the normal procedures of Parliament, there is no wrapping-up stage. There should be proper procedures whereby we have time to debate such questions, especially questions which are of great importance to many of our constituents and which, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey properly emphasised, were bitterly debated in the other place where the Government could not command any great majority. I should have thought that all those arguments would also have appealed to the House of Commons.
The Government are curtailing debate on a matter of great importance to masses of people throughout Britain and the Leader of the House does not even have the courage to move the motion himself.
As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills rightly said, if the Government had listened on the poll tax they might not be in such a scrape now. The Government never listen except when the Prime Minister is caterwauling in Ministers' ears, saying that they must get the business through. The Government have introduced a series of measures which will injure the education of the British people. The Under-Secretary of State knows well that in practically every decent university, and especially at Oxford, what he and his Department have done is regarded with contempt—and the Government will be all the more regarded with contempt because of their rejection of the proper processes of parliamentary discussion in introducing the measure.
I hope that the House of Commons will reassert itself. A vote against the motion would not destroy the Government, but it might teach them a necessary lesson—too late for them to learn from, but good for the House of Commons none the less.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: There is no justification whatever for the motion, to which I shall stick strictly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has recited the figures of the number of guillotines, which used to be few and far between. I well remember when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House and his invariable courtesy, and there was no guillotine on our lengthy and contentious debates on devolution.
We are about to debate—if we ever get to them—the Lords amendments to this important Bill. Why a guillotine? Why would any hon. Member filibuster on those? On 3 April my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—a temporary Member of the House—said:
In view of the widespread filibustering on Report, the guillotine will be widely welcomed."—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1069.]
There was no filibustering on Report. We have all tried to debate these matters sensibly and thoughtfully, so why this measure? There is a belief on the Front Bench, or the temporary Front Bench, that any opposition is the result of treachery or deceit. Those of us who have endeavoured over the past two or three months to persuade the Government to change their mind on some matters, as we have persuaded the other place to do, are now being told that debate will be curtailed and the guillotine will fall.
That is the certain course to disaster. The House, which I love and have served for 25 years, is based on debate and discussion, disagreement and agreement. I have learnt a great deal in the House from listening to Opposition Members. I would not say that I have acquired wisdom, but I have learnt a great deal, and I hope that I have imparted something. The moment we start stopping that, which is what the process is all about, we shall destroy the heart and soul of the House of Commons and the heart and soul of British democracy.
I loathe the Bill and I loathe the motion. I shall vote against all of it. I wish that I had the eloquence to express to the House how angry I feel that my party should have the temerity, arrogance and stupidity to try to force such measures through.

Mr. MacGregor: Does not my hon. Friend accept, as I made clear in my opening speech, that we listened carefully to the debates on the Bill in the House? We have accepted a number of amendments which have been put forward because they are in response to points made in debate.

Mr. Rhodes James: I can only ask my right hon. Friend, then why move the guillotine?

Mr. Harry Barnes: Some Conservative Members seem to think that it is a great wheeze to keep pointing out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that he introduced five guillotine motions in one day, as if that meant that the guillotine motion before us, or any recent guillotine, was justified rather than something that needs to be argued for on its merits. Even if there was merit in putting forward five guillotines in one day, that would not justify the guillotine motion on this Bill.
By this time we could have been well into the debate on the first set of amendments; we might even have passed them. Instead, we will spend probably three hours on the guillotine debate and will have only a limited period in which to discuss the amendments themselves. When we allow for a Division at 10.40 pm, about 15 minutes later the car parking area will look like the start of a motor race as hon. Members rush away. Those who want to dash away after exercising their vote at the behest of the Whips should be allowed to leave, and other hon. Members who wish to consider an important measure, on which there is great feeling on both sides of the House, should be given a further opportunity to pursue the amendments which have come to us from another place, as well as the additional amendments which have been tabled.
We should be allowed to consider the measure properly. The quality of debate on the amendments might have some impact on the future of the legislation. We do not just debate specific items at different stages but put out markers for the future. As a result of debate, there might be greater understanding in future.
We have six hours to cover the timetable debate and the consideration of the amendments. Some hon. Members have pointed out eloquently that the timetable motion is procedurally and constitutionally corrupt and should not be before us. We have seven batches of important amendments to discuss. In most cases there are amendments to amendments. It is not a case of the


Government supporting certain proposals, that being the end of it, and we can all disappear. The amendments tabled by various hon. Members should also be discussed.
In the seven batches of amendments, 15 of the 17 Lords amendments, and nine of the 16 amendments to Lords amendments have been selected for debate. In theory, we could have eight Divisions on amendments and on the timetable motion. Therefore, we could spend two hours going through the Division Lobbies, which would cut further into the time possible for debate.
The measure is significant and important. We should have time to discuss the consultation procedure, the parliamentary procedure for dealing with regulations and the grant regulations themselves. The Bill is an enabling measure. It cannot be argued that, because it is only a four-page Bill, with few clauses, it can be trundled through quickly. Because it has such vast implications, we should discuss it in great detail and should try to dig out all that is involved in it.
The Bill has implications for students with disabilities and consumer credit for minors. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled an amendment on data protection. I have often heard him speak on the subject, in which he has great expertise. I would be happy to listen to him on this occasion. I believe that he would make a significant contribution on the disclosure of information which will be available to the student loan organisation. However, that amendment is the final one in the seventh batch, and the chances of getting to it are remote.
We should not be discussing a timetable motion. Instead we should have had the opportunity to consider matters in detail, as was done in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading and in the other place. The Government claim that the amendments which they have tabled arose because of the quality of debate in the House and in the other place. I doubt whether it was the quality of the discussion which caused the Government to put forward amendments. I believe it was because of politics and the fact that there was a rebellion in certain ranks within the Conservative party. Detailed consideration of all the amendments on the Amendment Paper led to considerable improvements in the Bill.
The measure has fantastic significance for the future of higher education and for a growing number of people with great potential who should be given the opportunity to participate in higher education. I refer to people from a working-class background, women who have been discriminated against, members of ethnic minorities who need encouragement to become involved in the system, and late developers who need a second opportunity to move into higher education, Not only is it their loss, but it is an even greater loss to society if they cannot take advantage of higher education because of the implications of the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I noted that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke for nine minutes. Like him, I agree that we must restrict our remarks to the guillotine motion, so I shall endeavour not to speak any longer than he did. Nor shall I follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) or my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the general

principle of guillotine motions as they apply in Parliament. There are deep issues involved. Certainly I do not intend to address those now. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is the expert, because during his time as Leader of the House he guillotined the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I remind the House that he also guillotined an education Bill.
I shall not pursue that point because common sense enables me to support the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said that the Bill is straightforward. At the same time, I accept that the Bill is controversial and that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whom I respect, hold differing views on it. Nevertheless, we all understand what it is about, so I do not agree with those who argue that there must be a lengthy debate, going on for ever and ever. Most of us understand the issues, which is why I am happy to support my right hon. Friend's opening remarks.
I can support also my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government have made a positive response to the representations by Members of another place and by right hon. and hon. Members of this House. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reminded the House that no guillotine or curtailment of debate was exercised in Committee, on which I served, and that the debate there was very wide-ranging. That supports the Government's case.

Mr. Jackson: The Government were particularly appreciative of the points that my hon. Friend made repeatedly in Committee about the need to increase the access fund, to which we also responded.

Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend gives me a chance to shorten my speech still further, because I intended to welcome the response made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and to my own strong representations.
It is good news for students, not least those at the university of East Anglia in Norwich, in my area, that the access fund for higher education has been doubled, from £10 million to £20 million, making the total funds available £25 million. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that sum under review as the scheme progresses, for the benefit of students. After all, we are all interested in providing students with extra benefits and with the furtherance of good higher education.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend comment on the possibility that in his own constituency, for example, landlords will continue to include the rates element in the rents that they charge students? I know that he condemns that practice, and I shall be grateful if he will give the House the benefit of his views.

Mr. Thompson: I entirely support my hon. Friend's argument that landlords should reflect the changes brought about by the new local government finance arrangements, of which we are all aware. In the Norwich Eastern Evening News, a group of landlords stated that they would honour their obligation to reflect that change. I do not know whether all landlords in Norwich and elsewhere will do the same, but I hope that they will.
I promised that I would be even briefer than the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, so I shall move on


quickly. I welcome also the increase in the disabled students' allowance, for which many of my hon. Friends campaigned in Committee, and the disregard of disability-related benefits when assessing income for deferment.
Even more important than the concept of student loans is the value and level of the total student grant—although I do not have time to discuss that in detail this evening. The good news about the new scheme is that it makes more money available. In the present political climate, it is not always possible to emphasise the positive aspects of legislation, but that improvement should not go unremarked.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government often trot out the line that so much more money is being made available, but will the hon. Gentleman be honest enough to admit where that money is coming from? The answer is that it is being borrowed and must be paid back. It is not the result of great munificence on the part of the Government.

Mr. Thompson: I am happy to agree with the argument that the student loans scheme is a student loans scheme. There is no way that I can deny what is already in the title of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is good at taking up time, but I want to make progress.
There has been much argument about access to higher education, a subject on which I have addressed sixth form students in Norwich. Concern is felt about whether the Bill will increase or decrease access to higher education, particularly among young people from lower income groups. I would go so far as to say that, if access decreases as a direct consequence of the scheme, we would all be deeply concerned. I take the view—although I cannot yet prove that it is correct—that the Bill will help to increase access. Figures in a parliamentary answer that I received reveal that the number of applications for university places in the current year has increased.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of applications has increased by 20 per cent. over the previous year?

Mr. Thompson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend reminds me of the precise percentage increase, which makes my point even more effectively.
I have always rejected the argument that access to higher education will be negatively affected by the scheme's introduction.

Mr. Roy Beggs: What will the hon. Gentleman be willing to do if it is proved in the near future that the number of students enrolling for higher education is falling? Also, does he acknowledge that current applications have been made under the existing grants system?

Mr. Thompson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, because I know from my own meetings with sixth formers that they are fully aware of the scheme. Not all of them currently support it, but they know of it.
As it is the Government's declared policy to increase the numbers in higher education, not only would I be concerned if they were to fall, but so would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Jackson: The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are continuing to monitor the position. Figures are collected and analysed, and we shall be aware of trends. In the full publicity of this House, I make a private bet with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that in five years' time the proportion of students from working-class backgrounds will have increased substantially.

Mr. Thompson: I shall discuss later with my hon. Friend the nature of our wager, but I am not anxious to make too many bets. Nevertheless, I agree with his general point. Not enough emphasis has been placed on two of the scheme's positive aspects. One is the removal of the parental contribution, which will benefit many families. The other is that it is altogether a better scheme for students. Common sense dictates that there will be enough time for a debate. I know that I have exceeded the time that I allotted myself, but there have been several interventions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Thompson: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, provided he does not mind if my speech continues a little longer.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 10 minutes, whereas my own contribution lasted for nine minutes. The hon. Gentleman has therefore spoken for longer than I did, if not better.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is right. My only excuse is that I have given way to some excellent interventions.
I support the remarks of the Minister. Apart from the wider debate about guillotine motions—I have sympathy with some of the remarks that have been made about that—common sense determines that we shall have enough time to debate the Bill.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: It was a privilege to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), whose comments were fundamental to the artificial debate that we are having on the timetable motion. We are contriving to ignore a major reality for young people, which is their entitlement to student grants and, above all, to housing benefit. That hon. Gentleman encapsulated everything that I wanted to say, and I wish simply to endorse the anger that he reflected, albeit in a restrained way.
The Goverment are showing contempt for the House from which the amendments have come, and that could result in problems for us. They are also showing contempt for Members of this House because an issue that is of root importance to students in the north of Ireland will not be debated because of the lack of time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Fifteen.

Mr. Mallon: The fact remains that the timetable motion shows contempt for the other place and, as I have explained, for Members of this House. That will greatly


affect our ability to discuss matters vital to youngsters in the north of Ireland, youngsters who up to now have had faith in our democratic processes.
When we try to explain to them our inability to discuss issues crucial to their further education and say that we were prevented from doing that because of an archaic rule, they are bound to feel that we consider such procedures to be more important than the future of their education. To explain that away requires a degree of eloquence far exceeding that of any Member.

Mr. David Evennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all these issues were debated on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and that constraints of time will concentrate the minds of speakers in tonight's debate?

Mr. Mallon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about constraints of time concentrating speakers' minds, but when on crucial issues such as these we resort to the artificiality of the guillotine, we are damaging our democratic processes and insulting the young people whose futures we should be debating.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) referred to the debates in Committee. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, because of the procedures of the House, only one minority party was allocated a place at that stage, and that place was occupied by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). That meant that the SDLP, the Welsh National party, the Ulster Unionists and the SDP were excluded. The House will appreciate why we are vexed at the fact that we shall not have time to debate many issues that concern us, especially as we participated fully at all other stages, when we were able to do so.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Lady is right, and our only good fortune was that we were admirably represented in Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
As we consider what has happened recently in London and in other British cities, we realise that democracy is a very tender plant indeed which must be nurtured and cosseted. That is equally true of the future of our young people. The guillotine on this issue makes me angry. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Cambridge said more eloquently than I could what I wanted to say. Not only are we showing complete indifference to our position as legislators, but we are showing gross indifference to the young people of the nation and their future educational status.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am anxious, before deciding how to vote on the allocation of time motion, to raise certain issues. But first I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the court of Brunel university, which is in my constituency.
The University Funding Council wants Brunel to expand its intake of students by 10 per cent. That means that students, because there is not sufficient accommodation on campus, can come to Brunel only if they can find and afford accommodation off campus. In practice, that means accommodation somewhere in Uxbridge, Southall or Ealing.
Brunel needs 400 more units of student accommodation. That need is at present being considered by the university, which hopes to build some of them. But those units can be provided only if the cost of borrowing is spread over the existing student accommodation. That would make it as expensive as off-campus accommodation. If Brunel were to build, say, 600 additional units, the cost of doing that at current interest rates would put those units above that of off-campus accommodation.
The cost of off-campus accommodation at Brunel and at other London universities is higher than in any other part of the country. I therefore question whether the amount of the maximum loan facility to be made available to students in London will be sufficient. I had hoped for an opportunity to debate that in relation to Government amendment No. 7. I do not know whether there will be time for that debate if the guillotine motion is approved.
It is a tough guillotine motion. It does not specify a period for the House to debate each amendment, so I have no alternative but to ask the Minister some questions before deciding how to vote on the matter. I say that because the cost of on-compus accommodation at Brunel is, on average, £25 a week. The cost of off-campus accommodation is about £37·50 a week, or £12·50 more.
The Minister will appreciate that, over a 30-week academic year, a student living off campus must find an additional £400 a year, plus the cost of travelling to and from university. We should be given time tonight to debate whether the access funds will be sufficient to allow the university to provide additional financial assistance for students living off campus.
The Minister said that the access funds would be substantially increased. I am pleased about that, and I congratulate the Government on securing that additional funding from the Treasury. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest on the important question that I have raised. It affects London universities in particular and those which, like Brunel, have many students living off campus. I hope that the Minister will comment on the extent to which the funding council will be able to allocate funds to the university to help students in that position.

Mr. Jackson: I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have substantially increased the size of the access fund and have made it clear to the funding council that, when they distribute funds to institutions, the Government expect relative housing costs to be a major factor in the formulae which determine distribution. The institutions will take housing costs into account when they make allocations to students in need. I have no doubt that Brunel, which, as my hon. Friend says, is situated in a relatively high-cost area, will benefit from those arrangements.

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will the universities decide how to dispose of the funds allocated to them by the funding council?

Mr. Jackson: It will be entirely a matter for the universities.

Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not detain the House any further. I wanted the opportunity to raise those important points on behalf of a university which is situated just outside Greater London.

Mr. Mike Watson: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was not here earlier, when the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), spoke about the guillotine. They did so eloquently and, certainly for someone of my experience, provided a clear insight into what the Government are attempting to do through the motion.
The guillotine was clearly planned at least last week by the Government but was withdrawn, in what can be described only as a cynical manoeuvre, to avoid alerting the other place, which was still considering the amendments until Thursday of last week. That further compounded the Government's disarray on the Bill, which is best illustrated by the pull-out of the banks and the confusion surrounding that, which continues to surround how the Student Loans Company will operate. The confusion was further compounded in Committee in the other place last week when the Government were forced to table a new amendment to the Bill. That arose because it became apparent that the offer of loans to people under the age of 18 could render the Student Loans Company liable to criminal proceedings under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
I see that you are now in your place, Mr. Speaker. The subject of the Consumer Credit Act and minors under the age of 18 was never raised in the Chamber nor in Committee. Yet the Government are now attempting to steamroller the Bill on to the statute book without further discussion of that important matter. We have to ask why the Government find a guillotine necessary. The Minister and subsequent Conservative Members who spoke on the motion have failed to justify the need for a guillotine.
For a guillotine to be used on a flimsy four-clause Bill shows that the Government are running scared of their Back Benchers. On the various occasions when the legislation has been discussed in the Chamber, some Conservative Back Benchers have voiced their opposition to the Bill in various ways. It seems to me that the Government are attempting to deny those Back Benchers a further opportunity to air their opposition. That is a shabby tactic, but it is quite in character with the way in which the Government have carried through the Bill. They refused to accept amendments in Committee. They refused to listen to the arguments of Opposition Members in Committee.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have had no intention significantly to modify their proposals, despite the strength of opinion held by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the education community. Powerful evidence was presented to hon. Members in Committee, but the Government consistently refused to listen to that opinion. They have ignored the effect that the Bill will have on access and on the costs to students. Those two items are inextricably linked and the Government have refused to recognise that.

Mr. Beggs: Much reference has been made to the 30-week term and housing benefit. Is it not a fact that few landlords will allocate accommodation to students if they receive rent for only 30 weeks?

Mr. Watson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it brings me back to a subject

that I raised in Committee—rents paid by students in the city of Edinburgh. Edinburgh's rents are possibly the second highest in the United Kingdom outside London—with the possible exception of Aberdeen. I quoted a case in Edinburgh that showed clearly that the result of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 was that many landlords had decided that students were no longer suitable tenants and were getting rid of them at every opportunity. Landlords were choosing to change houses available for rent and to sell them.
I was unconvinced by the hon. Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who repeated arguments made in Committee about the poll tax. The poll tax has been in existence in Scotland for the past year and during that period landlords have consistently refused to withdraw the rates element of rents demanded of tenants, who now have to pay poll tax independently. The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that he is sure that landlords in Norwich will not do that. Certainly the information that I am receiving from other parts of the United Kingdom proves that that is not the case elsewhere, and that is a further worry to students who are likely to be denied accommodation or, if they are not denied it, asked to pay significantly more.
I regret that we do not have the opportunity to discuss housing benefit because it is an important aspect of the Bill. The withdrawal of benefits to students fundamentally hits at the argument that the Government have advanced that the Bill will increase resources to students and take away some of the weight on parents' shoulders. In theory, parents will not be required to make a contribution, or such a large contribution, but in fact, parents who can afford it will be asked by their student sons and daughters to bail them out during vacations when they cannot find employement or are unable to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefit or income support.
It is unfair of the Government to ignore the fact that that will affect precisely the students whom they claim that they want to attract into education—working-class students, whose numbers at universities in the United Kingdom dropped between 1979 and 1988 from 22·5 per cent. to 19·9 per cent. at the same time as the value of the grant was decreasing. I cannot understand why the Government will not take on board the fact that the reason why the number of students from that socio-economic background decreased during that period.
The Government have consistently failed to make it clear how the offer of loans to students from such a background will encourage them into higher education in much larger numbers—not just larger numbers—than previously. That is why it is particularly unfortunate that amendment No. 8, which was carried in the other place and which reinstated the payment of housing benefit to students, is not being allowed to be presented this evening. That certainly lets the Government off the hook, but it shows that when the Bill was put under scrutiny in the other place they made a decision based on common sense, and the amendment was carried by a majority of almost two to one.
Throughout its various stages, the Bill has been shown to be universally unpopular and unwanted, except by the Government and those Conservative Back Benchers who have been whipped into the Lobby. As has been demonstrated this evening, the Government do not have


enough confidence in the Bill to submit it to full scrutiny or to submit the amendments carried in the other place to adequate debate.
The Government's tactics in introducing the guillotine motion and the sleight of hand with which they did so, bring them no credit whatever. Neither does any aspect of the Education (Student Loans) Bill bring the Government any credit.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I respect the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), both of whom are distinguished in the House for their independence of mind and the integrity of their views. Normally I find myself very much in agreement with their view on the way in which the business of the House is conducted—or misconducted, as is sometimes the case. However, I feel that there could be a reason for implementing the guillotine, because of the time and the brouhaha expended on the subject of a relatively small change in the way in which the over-privileged are already funded by the under-privileged.
That has already received a great deal of time in the House and in the other place. There is nothing so nauseating as the sight of the privileged pursuing even more privileges. It is the middle classes who resent the Bill. The fact is that 80 per cent. of students come from the middle classes. They are attempting to protect and to some extent extend the great privileges that they already enjoy. Partly on account of birth and partly on account of the financial background of their families, they are able to benefit from a university education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to my personal experience. I come from what is partronisingly called a blue-collar family. I paid all the costs, apart from tuition, of my college and university education. There was no housing benefit or social security benefit in those days. Furthermore, when I began teaching I was expected to pay back the cost of my education by teaching for a number of years. If I had not done so, I should have been expected to pay back the cost of my training. That was accepted. However, society has reached the point at which it is resented if the state does not pay for various things. I do not share that view.
The great majority of people who make a success of their lives have not had a university education. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the entrepreneurial class—the poor bloody infantry who support the rest of our society—do not go through to the age of 22, or more, as wards of the state who are paid for by their fellow citizens. Those people look askance at the way in which Members of Parliament devote so much of their time to protecting the privileges of those who already have it so good. For that reason, the Government are right to curtail the time that we should spend on debating the issue.
My quarrel with the Bill is that it does not go far enough. There is no reason why those who will enjoy the better things of life, by virtue of their birth, attributes and intellect, should expect yet more of those whose lot it is to leave school at 16, without resentment, and work their way through life, pulling themselves up by their own elbow

grease and boot straps. The less time we spend on debating these privileges and the sooner the full cost of higher education is met by those who benefit from it, the better.
The entrepreneurs on whom the wealth and progress of our society depends ask for no privileges from this House. All they ask for is to be allowed to keep as large a proportion of their resources as they can, so that they can be ploughed back into promoting their own self-interest and progress. That is what we should work for. Those who, by birth and intellect, are already endowed with privileges that many people lack should not come to the House, or to the other place, with their begging bowls and ask for yet more assistance from those who work to provide it.

Mr. Andrew Smith: During the last two hours we have heard contorted and specious arguments in support of the motion. For most of the time, we have heard no arguments at all. There was a Second Reading speech by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). As for the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), at last she came clean as to where the Conservative party was heading in its funding of higher education—towards a system based not on ability to benefit but on ability to pay.
Those who spoke in favour of the motion gave no good reason why this miserable specimen of a Bill should be timetabled. The only argument which might have carried any real conviction—that hon. Members want to make the quickest possible exit from this place for the Easter recess—has not been repeated since the Secretary of State for Education and Science alluded to it. I suspect that when Conservative Members are greeted by their constituents' anger about the poll tax, mortgage interest rates and rent, they will wish that they had stayed here for Easter.
When one considers the allocation of time motion for consideration of the Bill, one wonders whether there is a little-known standing order which provides that anything to do with student loans must be dealt with as near as possible to weekends and public holidays. It is more than a matter of curious coincidence that our first debate on the student loans proposal, almost a year after the White Paper was published, was on a Friday, that the statement about the withdrawal of the banks from the scheme was held back until the last day before the Christmas Adjournment, that the Report stage was on a Thursday and that today is the last full day of business before the Easter recess.
It is all the more bizarre that, having relied on such recreational carrots to drag the Bill along thus far, the Government should decide that they need the big stick of the guillotine as well. As my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) have said, the guillotine cannot be defended. The Bill had not been timetabled previously; there was no filibustering at any of the earlier stages; the Lords amendments cover issues not previously debated here, such as compelling higher education institutions to help to administer the scheme, and the implications in relation to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The guillotine was introduced at the last possible moment. The Bill was withdrawn from last week's business in a shabby and cynical maneouvre, thus misleading the other place as to the Government's intentions. As my right


hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, a guillotine motion should be used only in rare circumstances and it should be argued for carefully. We have heard no such careful argument in favour of the motion today.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support all that the hon. Gentleman says and I do not wish to distract him from it. However, to confirm what he said and to deal with a point—just in case the record does not reveal it—raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the time that this House has had to debate the Bill since the Second Reading amounts to 10 hours, which was the time spent on Report and Third Reading, and that we have gone from Second Reading to Third Reading in just over two months. It is only just over a month since the Bill was sent to the Lords and returned to us. There has been no delay. The House has not spent an inordinate time debating any of the provisions in this important Bill.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have just seen the bulldozer in operation, and it is unjustifiable. Any impartial observer is left with no other impression than that of a Government running scared. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said yesterday, this is not so much a matter of business management as of crisis management.
What is the purpose of the guillotine? What is the great volume of business that the Government claim justifies its imposition? There are just 17 Lords amendments. Two of them have been ruled out of order on grounds of privilege, three are minor Government drafting changes, 10 are changes initiated or supported by the Government and just two of them reflect Government defeats in the other place—on draft regulations and on repayment terms for disabled students. It is as pathetic as it is insulting that the Government should stoop to the use of the guillotine to bulldoze this measure through. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, in a speech as persuasive as it was passionate, the guillotine is a disgrace to the Conservative party just as it is a disgrace to the House.
The Government cannot claim in their defence that our amendments are capricious, trivial or wrecking when we have sought to defend and improve upon the changes made in another place. These are changes to ensure meaningful consultation—something totally absent from the Government's approach; changes to enable Parliament properly to consider the regulations by which the scheme will operate; changes to reimburse institutions for their enforced participation in the administration of the scheme; changes to ensure that the loan does not become more than half of maintenance without primary legislation; changes to safeguard the position of students with disabilities; and changes to protect those under 18 and to safeguard against the disclosure of information by the Student Loans Company.
Had we had the chance—we hope still to have it—we would have argued strongly for the reinstatement of housing and other social security benefits, the withdrawal of which will cause much hardship and represent the removal of basic rights of citizenship to which everyone is entitled.
These are not unreasonable changes. They undoubtedly reflect the consensus of the general public, education institutions and students. If hon. Members on the Government Benches had the opportunity to vote freely according to their judgment, I have no doubt that the amendments would be carried here, too. I draw the attention of the House to the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) yesterday, when he told the Leader of the House
that some of us care deeply about the future of higher education, and that he cannot guillotine that".—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1068.]
We heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge today a testament to the conviction that he expressed yesterday in his moving and dignified speech in defence of the best traditions of the House and against a Government who are abusing them and thereby abusing democracy. The hon. Gentleman's voice should be heard today and hon. Members should follow his advice in the Division Lobby.
A wise Government would listen, take notice and act in accordance with the overwhelming majority opinion on these issues—but then a wise Government, with the best interests of higher education and the country at heart, would not have introduced the student loans scheme or the Bill in the first place. The Bill remains, as it started, a triumph of narrow ideology over common sense and the common interest. The scheme that it would introduce is an expensive administrative nightmare, damaging both to students' welfare and to the national interest, closing avenues of opportunity at the very time when Britain should be opening them up.

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Smith: No, I cannot give way now.
This guillotine motion, like the Bill that it timetables, could have been brought forward only by a Government deaf to public opinion through arrogance, and arrogant because they do not care. As the Bill is pushed lamely towards the statute book, it bears its makers' mark in its ill-considered provisions which have been a shambles from start to finish.
Like the poll tax, the cost and unfairness and the deep unpopularity of student loans will return to haunt the Prime Minister, who insisted that the Bill should proceed. The Opposition's commitment to grant will be one more reason why we shall be elected to office, when we will repeal this damaging scheme, just as we urge the House to reject this draconian and unnecessary guillotine today.
In a phrase which can be taken only as the deepest insult to democracy in this Parliament, the Secretary of State in opening the debate referred to tonight's proceedings as the "wrapping up" stage. I will tell him what is being wrapped up—the Government and their insufferable arrogance are being wrapped up. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against this unnecessary, draconian and insulting motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): All hon. Members will share my admiration of the hyperbolic style of my good friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I shall be brief in winding up this debate—although perhaps I may not use such an expression after what has been said about the phrase "wrapping up"—and, in the interests of enabling us to get


on with the debate, I will speak only to the guillotine motion. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to forgive me if, because of this, I do not respond on this occasion to some of the points which have been made but which are outside the scope of the guillotine motion. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to some of my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members who allowed me to intervene in their speeches, thus enabling me, I hope, to clarify some issues.
It is common ground in the House that it would be rather nice not to have to use the guillotine. I respect and rather admire, and indeed am sometimes a little terrified by, the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but we all know that as long as we have the right—unusual in comparison with other Parliaments—to speak for as long as we like, the guillotine will be one of the awkward facts of parliamentary life.
What I have to say now does not apply to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), but let me remind Opposition Members of Oscar Wilde's remark that hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. It implies that, while expressions of hypocrisy are to be desired from time to time as reinforcements of virtue, we should not overdo it. As has been observed, Governments of both parties have used the guillotine and doubtless Governments of both parties will do so in future, should there be an occasion when there is a Government of another party. Meanwhile, let us remember that the Bill to which this guillotine relates is only a four-clause Bill. Let me remind the House also that it has undergone no fewer than 90 hours of debate in both Houses.
It is interesting to compare this with the other legislation with which I have been involved, the Education Reform Act. Before it was enacted, it was a 235-clause Bill which took up 216 hours in both Houses. I calculate that today's Bill has had no fewer than 22 hours of discussion per clause, compared with 1·3 hours of discussion per clause of the Education Reform Bill. In my opinion, our debate was of high quality. Hon. Members on both sides agreed that the House of Commons Committee stage led to a genuinely constructive and civilised exchange of views, and I pay tribute to Opposition Members, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and to my colleagues for that.
Debates in the other place are by definition always of a constructive and civilised character. That is no doubt one reason why the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments. Since there has been a suggestion from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge that the Government are in some way disregarding the other place, let me give some indication of the substance of those amendments.
We have agreed to consultation before amending schedule 1; we have agreed to amendments to schedule 1 by the affirmative resolution procedure; we have agreed to the affirmative resolution procedure for the first student loan regulations; we have agreed to amendments in relation to disabled students, for a 50:50 ratio for loan and grant, and to extend protection of information in the hands of the Student Loans Company. So there is no doubt that the Bill has been well and extensively debated and has also been amended in important points of detail.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) adduced two arguments against the guillotine: that the points still to be debated are points of great substance, and that if we go on with the guillotine we shall have only 10 minutes for each amendment. I will finish my remarks now to enable us to debate those amendments because that will enable the House to see for itself whether those assertions are true. It is my belief that we will all agree that the amendments that we now have to consider are not particularly important. Most of them are rather minor and we can safely deal with the important ones in the time we have available to us.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 212.

Division No. 159]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Curry, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benyon, W.
Fishburn, John Dudley



Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Dame Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ground, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Christopher


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.






Hill, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Irvine, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irving, Sir Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Tim
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tredinnick, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trippier, David


Mellor, David
Trotter, Neville


Miller, Sir Hal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Sir David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walden, George


Moore, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Mudd, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann





Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wilshire, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Winterton, Nicholas



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Tony Durant and


Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Mr. David Lightbown.


Yeo, Tim





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foulkes, George


Allen, Graham
Fraser, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Armstrong, Hilary
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beith, A. J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Haynes, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bidwell, Sydney
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blunkett, David
Henderson, Doug


Boateng, Paul
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Geraint


Buchan, Norman
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Buckley, George J.
Hoyle, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clay, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kilfedder, James


Corbett, Robin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McGrady, Eddie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eadie, Alexander
Maclennan, Robert


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mallon, Seamus


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foster, Derek
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James






Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Snape, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Nellist, Dave
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Prescott, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Rhodes James, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robertson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salmond, Alex
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Allen McKay and


Short, Clare
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made

by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.


8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. Speaker: I undertook earlier, at the request of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to look again at my decision that Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are not covered by the money resolution in respect of the Bill.
The resolution in question authorises payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the forthcoming Education (Student Loans) Act. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would require payments to be made under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986: in the case of Lords amendment No. 8 to all loan-taking students, whether or not they are currently eligible for housing benefit; and in the case of Lords amendment No. 10 to postgraduate students even if they are not loan takers.
I am satisfied that both Lords amendments would have been out of order if it had been sought to move them in this House and that my decision that it was necessary to invoke Standing Order No. 76 in respect of those Lords amendments is correct.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that you have taken to reconsider the matter, although, naturally, Opposition Members regret that they will not have a chance to vote on the substantive issue of the denial of housing benefit to students. This matter will now return to the other place with a message from this

place. Will it be possible for their Lordships to amend Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 and, if they agree, to table an acceptable amendment on which the House could voice an opinion?

Mr. Speaker: Their Lordships would certainly have to consider any message from this place. It would then be up to them what they did about it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members, in the interim, will the Government consider a second money resolution that would take account of the implications of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986, which also could be sent to the other place for consideration?

Mr. Speaker: It is too late to do that in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10, but it is always for the Government to consider whether they should introduce further money resolutions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the Minister twice made the factual statement—you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair at the time—that the Government had accepted 17 Lords amendments. From the papers before us, that appears to be incorrect. It appears that the Secretary of State will move three motions disagreeing with the Lords amendments. On the face of it, the Government have not accepted three of the Lords amendments. It is important that a misleading impression is not given, because Hansard will have recorded the Secretary of State as saying that the Government have accepted 17 Lords amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Until the House gets on to the amendments, it will not know whether the Government disagree with them. I think that we had better get on with them.

Orders of the Day — Education (Student Loans) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

LOANS FOR STUDENTS

Lords amendment: No 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert "but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable"

Read a Second time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at end insert
`including those listed in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to this Act'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the consequential amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in Schedule 1, page 3, line 30, at end add—
`(8) Bodies to be consulted under section 1(4) above shall include—

Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals
Committee of Directors of Polytechnics
National Union of Students
Advisory Board for the Research Councils
Association of County Councils
Advisory Centre for Education
Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education
Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services
Association of Graduate Recruiters
Association of Metropolitan Authorities
Association of Principals of Colleges
Confederation of British Industry
Council of Local Education Authorities
Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
Department of Employment
Department of Education for Northern Ireland
Education Grants Advisory Service
Further Education Unit
Economic and Social Research Council
The Institute of Careers Officers
Universities Funding Council
Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
National Council for Vocational Qualifications
Scottish Education Department
Science and Engineering Research Council
Secondary Heads Association
Trades Union Congress
Scottish Trades Union Congress
Welsh Education Office
Council for National Academic Awards
Forum for Access Studies.'.

Mr. Straw: The amendments raise a short point, and, in view of the lack of time to debate other major issues, I shall be brief.
In the other place, the Government accepted that there should be consultation on what additional courses should be eligible for student loans. That acceptance is encapsulated in amendment No. 1, but it is not specific about who should be consulted. We have tabled two amendments so that the Secretary of State and the House may have a chance to lay down who should be consulted. Amendment (c) lists all the major national bodies which, so far as we can see, have an interest and should be consulted. I should be glad to hear from the Secretary of

State that he accepts that organisations of that national stature and importance should be consulted, among others, if, as I anticipate, Lords amendment No. 1 is included in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I can be equally brief. The amendment amplifies an undertaking given by the Government in the other place. In Committee we debated at some length whether the student loans scheme could apply to part-time students. As the House knows, they have none of the advantages of a grant system and are not proposed for inclusion in the loans system. My colleagues and I advocated that extension and suggested that it would be proper to use them in the first pilot scheme for loans, if there were to be loans, rather than full-time students. Such an extension should be the subject of proper consultation.
Some of us are worried, having listened to the earlier debate, that even after consultation the Government may not listen. We live in hope, however. It is better that all those with an interest are the subject of consultation and we are specific about who should be consulted. I hope that the Government will respond generously and will say not just that they accept Lords amendment No. 1, as we heard from the Government spokesman in the Lords, but that they are willing to be specific that all the bodies listed and any others with an interest will be consulted about any extension or variation in the number or nature of institutions which will be beneficiaries of the proposed scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Lords amendment No. 1 was tabled in the other House by Baroness David, but it was a Government amendment offered to her by Lord Caithness as she had taken the lead in urging the need for it and I pay tribute to her. The amendment qualifies the power in clause 1(4) to amend schedule 1, which is a list of eligible courses, by requiring the Secretary of State to consult before using the power. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Government intend loans to be available for all higher education courses below postgraduate level so long as the student is following the course full time and meets the residence requirements. Accordingly, schedule 1 lists as eligible all types of course at higher education level except postgraduate study. We do not expect to need to revise schedule 1 frequently because it is already comprehensive but, as is generally accepted, we must be able to keep it up to date without resorting to both Houses of Parliament for fresh primary legislation.
Amendments (b) and (c) would insert a requirement into the Bill that the consultation by the Secretary of State before amending schedule 1 should be undertaken with certain specific bodies. It would make consultation with those bodies a statutory requirement, which we are not prepared to accept. To be productive, consultation must be manageable. There is a wide range of interests potentially concerned in these matters and the Secretary of State must be able to decide whose views to seek in a particular case. That will depend on the particular change contemplated at the time. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will be attentive to representations from all quarters, but it would be wasteful and unnecessary to have a long prescribed list for every change to schedule 2.


There are further common-sense considerations. What would happen if a body in the schedule changed its name or went out of existence? Would we have to post letters to an organisation which no longer existed? What would happen if there was a new body which it was sensible to consult about a particular proposal? Those arguments show that it would be absurd to fix a list in the Bill. The Government are serious about consultation. We consult and listen. I recommend the rejection of the two amendments to the Lords amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
(5A) The power to make orders under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 3, in page 2, line 14, leave out from "make" to "subject" in line 16 and insert
regulations under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which, subject to subsection (7) below and paragraph (1A) of that Schedule, shall be
No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament and those regulations shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.
No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5, in paragraph (7),, leave out 'first'.

Mr. MacGregor: These amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of the orders and regulations made under the powers of the Bill. The bulk of these are Government amendments which discharge commitments made in another place in response to comments made in this House.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the power to amend schedule 1, which lists types of course for which loans are available. Clause 1(4) provides power to amend schedule 1 by order. This House and the other place expressed concern about the conferring of power to amend primary legislation. We have responded to it through the requirement to consult imposed by amendment No. 1. We do not expect frequent revision of schedule 1. It is already comprehensive, but we must be able to keep it up to date.
Amendment No. 2 applies the affirmative resolution to the order amending schedule 1. We have heeded the concern that the negative procedure originally proposed gives insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment.
Opposition amendment 2(a) has exactly the same effect as Lords amendment No. 1, which we have just agreed —that the Government are required to consult before amending schedule 1—and is therefore superfluous. I invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lords amendment No. 4 applies the affirmative resolution to the first use of the regulation-making power to establish the scheme. Regulations made later for further development of the scheme will be subject to negative resolution. The amendment covers the main aspects of the scheme and it is important that I emphasise them. They are the conditions of eligibility, except the list of eligible types of course in schedule 1, which are made in clause 1; the terms of the loan made in accordance with schedule 1(1); and the involvement of higher education institutions in securing access to loans for students.
I hope that amendment No. 4 meets the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report. We reflected on that debate, which is why I was happy to accept the amendment in another place. I had hoped that it would meet the concerns of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke in favour of the amendment on Report, but I see from Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 that he has ignored the arguments and returned to his old position. The Opposition amendment would make all orders and regulations always subject to the affirmative procedure. It is right to provide flexibility to develop the scheme once it is established through regulations, subject to the negative procedure. That was our original intention even for the first use of the regulation-making power.

Mr. Andrew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 has not been selected.

Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that, but I thought that the Secretary of State was coming to the end of his preliminary remarks.

Mr. MacGregor: You are right, Mr. Speaker. I failed to observe that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 was not selected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) for drawing that to my attention. However, I imagine that he would wish me to make my remarks about amendment No. 5 and amendment (a) to it, which has been selected, because this is probably the most material part of this debate.
On Lords amendment No. 5 we have agreed that regulations first made to establish the scheme should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have placed that requirement in the Bill by means of Lords amendment


No. 4. That means that, when the regulations are made for the first time, they will be debated by both Houses and approval of both Houses will be required before they come into force. That meets one of the key points in Lords amendment No. 5, but the amendment goes further because it seeks to allow either House to propose amendments to regulations.
As the House knows, Parliament cannot normally amend under either positive or negative procedure—it can only approve or reject. If either House makes its objections clear, the Government can withdraw the regulations. Otherwise, under the affirmative procedure, either House can vote against them.
On the main issue of principle, the effect of the normal affirmative procedure and that proposed by the amendment could be similar in certain circumstances. For example, under the amendment, the House could vote to amend and under the affirmative procedure it could vote to reject. The Secretary of State would then have to take away the draft regulations and return with fresh regulations to seek approval once again.
Lords amendment No. 5 introduces serious practical complications, and that is why I shall urge the House to reject it. The first complication is that one House might propose an amendment conflicting with one proposed by the other House. What would happen in that case, and which view would take precedence? The amendment provides no mechanism for resolving such questions.
Secondly, the amendment would add undesirable delay to the making of the first regulations by imposing a 40-day period after the draft regulations are laid before Parliament, during which time either House can approve amendments. If an amendment were passed during that period, fresh regulations would have to be presented and a further 40-day period would apply. That process could continue indefinitely. I have already made it clear that it is desirable to have the loan scheme in place at the earliest practical moment so that students can take advantage of it. Undesirable delay should not be agreed to.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 would keep this cumbersome arrangement in place for all future regulations as well as for the first set, and would apply the affirmative resolution to them as well. For the reasons that I have given, I would not wish to see this unnecessary and wasteful process of amendment applied to future regulations. The Government accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but we invite the House to disagree with the Lords on amendment No. 5 and to reject Opposition amendment (a).

Mr. Andrew Smith: We had much debate in Committee on the need for the affirmative resolution procedure on the regulations. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were advanced there. It is worth underlining that that matter is especially important when debating a Bill such as this, which contains so little detail about the administration of the scheme. Much is being left to regulations and that makes it all the more important that the House and the other place should have a meaningful opportunity to shape those regulations.
The Lords amendments represent a Government concession made under acute pressure. They conceded to the arguments that we advanced in Committee, in the House and in the other place and that is welcome.

However, they have not gone nearly far enough towards providing proper opportunities for democratic involvement and public input into Parliament's deliberations on the formulation of regulations that shape the way in which the scheme is to operate.
The affirmative resolution procedure should operate for each set of regulations and not merely for those introduced in the first year. The Government's proposal falls considerably short of the concession that Lady Young and her Conservative and Cross-Bench sponsors believed that they had won in the other place. In reply to Lady Young, Lord Caithness said:
We accept the principles behind the amendment of my noble Friend Lady Young."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1322.]
Lady Young had made it clear that those amendments were intended to cover three areas. Those were: the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans, which were subject to no parliamentary scrutiny under the Bill as drafted; the making of any orders to amend in the first year the list of courses for which loans will be payable; and the financial regulations and other details that were already under the negative resolution procedure.
Despite the apparent concession by Lord Caithness, on the basis of which those amendments were withdrawn, his amendment brought forward on Report in the Lords covered only the second and third areas. It did not cover the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans. Therefore, it was deficient in that respect.
The other Lords amendments result from the narrow and welcome victory secured in the other place by Earl Russell.

Mr. Jackson: By a majority of one.

Mr. Smith: That was a narrow majority but it was nevertheless a majority.
The amendments succeeded in inserting an ingenious procedure that has been used in the past. It would effectively give both Houses the opportunity to do that which the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 5 December said that he thought that the House itself had the power to do. He said then that it would be open to the House to amend the regulations, but subsequently recognised his error.
The ingenious procedure proposed by Earl Russell would enable both Houses to amend the regulations by requiring the drafts to be submitted for a 40-day period, within which either House could pass a motion commenting on the terms of the regulations. If any motion were passed that would require the regulations to be amended, the Secretary of State would be required to withdraw the regulations and re-lay them. The procedure is a simple but effective way to scrutinise the detail of regulations without necessarily going as far as rejecting them in principle. There is considerable merit in that ingenious procedure and we think that it should apply not only to the first regulations but to all subsequent regulations. That is why amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 proposes the deletion of the word "first".
The Opposition and many people outside the House regard the Bill as an affront to democracy, and the improvements that the Lords have succeeded in extracting from the Government would undoubtedly reinsert a small but welcome democratic opportunity for input from both


Houses and from the general public and interested parties. Therefore, we commend amendment (a) to the House. We welcome the Government's concession and ask hon. Members to vote to improve it so that we can improve democracy and remedy one defect in a very defective Bill.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: If I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science correctly, he asked us to disagree with Lords amendment No. 5. That is a pity, because, although the Bill is extremely short, it gives enormous power to the Secretary of State and transforms the whole system of student financing. I have the greatest possible trust in my right hon. Friend as an individual. He is an extremely good Secretary of State and an honourable and sound man. I do not say that to flatter him because he knows that I do not go in for the flattering of Ministers. However, when passing legislation one must consider carefully that my right hon. Friend will not be Secretary of State for ever. I hope that he will go on to higher things; he merits them and I am sure that he will earn them in due course.
No Secretary of State should take to himself powers that he is not happy for others to have. That is why I have opposed several proposals during the past 10 years. There has been an unhappy tendency for Secretaries of State to take to themselves overriding powers and, in so doing, to tilt the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.
It is important for Parliament to have a say in this matter. If regulations are to be brought forward, they should be ones that can be fully debated in every possible sense and changed, and there should be ample time to do so. Although it is difficult for the layman to understand, amendment No. 5, which was passed in another place, is an extremely ingenious way of constraining the power of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. I know that my right hon. Friend has tried hard to meet the wishes and listen to the doubts of those who are doubtful about the Bill, so it is a pity that he should ask the House of Commons to reverse an amendment passed in another place with strong all-party support. Conservative peers were very much to the fore in the debate and in the Lobby. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about this, even at such a late stage.
The Bill transforms the system of student finance. There are people outside this place, not just students but vice-chancellors and others, who are concerned about it. Only this morning I received a letter from a vice-chancellor who felt that what the House of Lords had done had gone a long way to remove his fears and anxieties, although he still retained some. It would be most unfortunate if we rejected what the other place has done, bearing in mind the objective expertise there. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not ask us to disagree. If he does, I fear that I cannot agree with him.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I declare an interest as an adviser to the Association of University Teachers, although I have had no communication with it on the subject of the amendment.
Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I am still hoping that the Government will be persuaded of the merits of the case put by the House of

Lords on amendment No. 5. The reason for my hope is that, in time, the Government seem to come round to my view. Amendment No. 4, which the Government accept, is precisely the amendment I moved in this place on Report and which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), stoutly resisted. His resistance bore all the marks of tactical resistance, not resistance to a principle.
I do not believe that, in the ensuing weeks, the Ministers suddenly became persuaded of arguments which had not been obvious to them in the first place. The arguments on the issue in amendment No. 4 are so obvious that the negative procedure of the House is a completely inadequate means of dealing with a major issue. It guarantees no debate or parliamentary proceeding. I believe that the Government decided that they had to have a tit-bit for the Lords and some concession that they could offer in another place. Therefore, with great dispatch, when Lady Young moved the amendment, the Government leaped to their collective feet and announced that they were willing to accept the amendment, which is a compromise.
The amendment ensures that the first time that the scheme is brought forward it is the subject of affirmative procedure, which guarantees that there will be a vote in this place and a debate, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House—I think that it would be on the Floor. It was a compromise, in that I and others, including the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), believed that all the regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure. It was a reasonable suggestion in the spirit of compromise, and I am glad that the Government accepted it. It means that, the first time that this major scheme comes forward, we are guaranteed at least a vote on it.
7.45 pm
At that time, all of us said that we needed more than merely a vote. When something so major, which one would expect to be the substance of a Bill, appears before the House in the form of regulations, we should have the opportunity to amend anything that is wrong with it. That was the reason for amendment No. 5, which was moved in another place by Earl Russell. Although it was a Liberal Democrat amendment, it attracted wide support from Members of all parties and it carried the day, albeit with a small majority. If the Government get a majority of one tonight, they too will be satisfied because a majority of one is enough.
Amendment No. 5 is important because it ensures, not just for this House, but for the other place, that when the scheme is brought forward, if there is something wrong with it, the fault can be put right. The Minister is not talking about the real world when he suggests that the amendment is unnecessary, because the scheme can be brought forward and, if there is something wrong with it, Members can vote it down and the Government can take it away, make changes and bring it back again. Can the Minister remember when that was last done? I certainly cannot.
I know what will happen: the Minister will come before the House with a scheme which will be shown to be defective, at least in some particular—it may be a small but important one. The Minister will say, "I recognise that hon. Members have raised an important point, which we would like to get right, but if the House does not pass the proposal tonight some students who do not get a grant will


not receive a loan. If the scheme is not put on the statute book straight away, hardship will be caused. It is too late to take away the regulations and bring them back, amended, another day. We shall look at it for next year. However sensible hon. Members think their points are, it would cause undue delay and hardship to introduce an amendment at this stage."

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is rehearsing.

Mr. Beith: Indeed, I am offering the Minister the script which I know he will have to use on that occasion. I guarantee—if I were a betting man, I would put money on it—that he will have to say something like that when the scheme is brought forward.
Anyone who has experienced the recent poll tax debates will know that Ministers have had to make changes on specific issues. An announcement has been made in the past few days that the Government will have to introduce retrospective legislation on caravan rating because, within the legislation they have put forward, they will be unable to achieve the effect which they intended. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it will certainly happen in this instance, when it will be not just the details but the substance of the scheme that is put forward in regulations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend came into the Chamber, there was a debate on the guillotine, in which just such an argument was anticipated. The Secretary of State's greatest argument for the guillotine and for curtailing debates on the amendments was that we should get on with the legislation if the students are to receive their grants by the end of this financial year and the beginning of the new student year. That was exactly the argument used today, and the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be told to use that argument again if the amendment is rejected by the House.

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is right, and I know that other hon. Members agree. How much better it would be to have a procedure for amendment there and then. The Minister says that it is not possible to build in such a requirement, but it is possible and it is done. I have moved amendments to census orders arising from the Census Act 1920, under which orders providing for a census are subject to amendment. I have moved just such an amendment, and the procedure set out in the Lords amendment is on similar lines.
If the procedure were in place, the regulations would be much more likely to be properly drafted in the first place. I do not think that the Government will want them to be amended. If the Minister wants to induce a spirit of efficiency and care among his civil servants on this issue, he will find no better mechanism than the certainty that the Government will face the amendment of their regulations. He will find that I have been his ally when he discovers that his civil servants are far more zealous than ever before in their attempts to get the regulations right and consult everyone because they know that there is a serious risk that the Goverment will be exposed to the embarrassment of having the legislation amended.
There is a great deal at stake: the nature of the scheme, the manner of the repayments, the problems that will be faced by students having to repay these loans, and the rules of eligibility—not to mention all the administration. It is important that we be given the opportunity to get those

things right. The procedural difficulties are not insuperable obstacles. On previous occasions this House and the other place have had to work out mechanisms for dealing with amendments to orders. A whole passage in "Erskine May" on page 546 points out that
If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".
So such amendments have been successfully dealt with in the past, and the procedural obstacles are not real.
The overwhelming case is that we are are enacting by regulation a major scheme that will affect the lives of large numbers of young people. If we are to get that right, it is surely far better that we be able to do what we can do with normal legislation—bring forward amendments. They might even be Government amendments. During the passage of this Bill we have seen how the Government have had to recognise as they go along that some of the legislation was wrong, or how they have wanted to respond to advice that they have received. It would be open to the Government to use the amending procedure that we are recommending here.
I do not see how we can go on showing parties of east Europeans around the House and sending out people to eastern Europe, where countries are developing new democratic Parliaments, telling them to see how we run the show, given our legislative arrangements under which we cannot amend a scheme as fundamental as that for student grants. My noble Friend the Earl Russell proposed a perfectly sensible and well precedented way of allowing amendments, and the Government should accept his method. If they are unwilling to do so, I shall invite the House to affirm its support for this principle—

Mr. Simon Hughes: I invite my hon. Friend to reflect that, above all in the context of this Bill, the Government should be minded to accept the amendment. The Bill was launched on the basis that it would be supported by the banks. Something went wrong and the Bill's proposals had to be completely rethought. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the Government should have understood by now that it is rarely possible to get such measures right first time —the more so on this measure.

Mr. Beith: I have never thought that the Secretary of State was the sort of Minister who thinks that he always gets it right first time. He has always struck me as the sort of man who is prepared to listen to arguments. So I have put an argument to him, and I ask him to reflect on his own experience in this and other matters and to realise that a subject as large as this should come to the House in amendable form. That is the substance of the amendment, and I believe that he and the House should accept it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: During the debate on the timetable motion, I argued that our debates should be allowed to continue because they would touch on issues that will affect people in future. This debate would have had more sense if it could have gone on longer. The ideas that we need to thrash out and formulate should be legitimately debated, and we should be allowed a procedure which was not only subject to affirmative resolution but allowed amendments.
I almost missed this debate because I slipped out after the timetable motion and the debate on Lords amendment No. 1 lasted only five minutes, which made me wonder why we had spent three hours discussing the guillotine motion when, instead of skipping through some of the


amendments, we might have had more time to deal with others and find out the Government's attitude to them. It would be interesting to hear the Secretary of State explain the Government's attitude to the various proposals in the amendments and to hear what they accept and what they reject. It would have done us no harm to hear such an explanation on the timetable motion.
Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State shouted out that a Lords amendment had been carried by just one vote. That was indicative of the Government's attitude—they have a vast majority, but they do not like admitting to the weight of opinion behind decisions which go against them. One vote is perfectly adequate—if it were not, we might as well pack up and disappear.

Mr. Cormack: As the hon. Gentleman will well remember, Lord Callaghan's Government fell on one vote.

Mr. Barnes: I remember that very well. The Government fell because Tom Swain, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East, was killed in a motor accident in the constituency that I now represent. But for that accident, the vote would have been tied and, in accordance with precedence, the Government could have carried on for a while—although for how long is another matter.

Mr. Jackson: I made the point about the majority of one not to disparage a majority of one, which is perfectly acceptable, but as an ironic comment on arguments advanced earlier during the guillotine motion debate when the Government were reproached because our majority fell on occasion to 40.

Mr. Barnes: That is significant because the Government have a majority of 150 over the Labour party and a majority of 100 over all parties combined. It would be of great significance if this amendment were agreed to by a majority of one—it would say something about the Government's position in connection with the Bill, and about their general difficulties.
We need an amendment of this type because of the nature of the legislation. This terrible measure of enabling legislation does not enable us properly to debate the items that will form part of the scheme. The legislation is so empty that, when the scheme was turned upside down by the banks' withdrawal, it did not cause a ripple in the Government. That proved, not that the Government had it right or that the Bill was compatible with anything, but that the Bill had run into serious constitutional, parliamentary and procedural problems.
The Secretary of State said that there could be some difficulty with the Lords amendment if the two Houses differed in their attitude to proposals that the Government brought forward. But "Erskine May", on page 546, points out
If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".
So we should not be perpetually bouncing back and forth waiting for fresh proposals from the Government; the Government could get together with their Lordships—the other place is not so far away—to try to resolve such issues. If that proved cumbersome, awkward or unusual, it would be due to the Government's having brought forward legislation of this sort. The other place has

attempted to overcome some of those considerable difficulties and its efforts would be further assisted by our amendment.
The affirmative procedure, which can be amended, is essential, for example, in relation to Northern Ireland measures, and this measure is particularly important to Northern Ireland. Nowhere in the United Kingdom will be more affected by the measure than Northern Ireland because of the percentage of the population there involved in higher education and its higher participation rates for people with working-class backgrounds and women compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a significant interest in the measure.
But when the House debates measures which extend legislation to Northern Ireland we are allowed only one and a half or three hours. When we debated the extension of the Education Reform Act 1987 to Northern Ireland we were allowed only three hours. Yet that measure contained 167 clauses and 10 schedules and its principles went beyond the Education Reform Act—for example, in its measures encouraging education for mutual understanding. Without those new principles it could have been dealt with by a negative procedure and there could only have been a debate on a prayer which would have dragged it on to the agenda for us to discuss. We do not want to be in that situation in this legislation which makes the position of Northern Ireland worse. For them we should learn from some of the procedural niceties to be found in "Erskine May", some of which were employed in the other place and gave rise to the amendment.
Enabling legislation which requires measures only to be rubber-stamped makes it essential that the two Houses of Parliament should between them try to discover procedures whereby the Government can be put on the right track even if the measure itself is not correct. I hope that the Government will change their mind on the amendments.

8 pm

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred to exchanges that took place in another place on whether or not the affirmative resolution should apply to administrative arrangements. We took the view that we were amply fulfilling the commitment that the noble Lord gave in relation to making the affirmative resolution apply to the regulations.
The administrative detail of the scheme is subject to the normal processes of scrutiny by various other parliamentary methods. The Secretary of State will be responsible and accountable for the use of the funds that are required for the administration of the scheme, and he must secure them through estimates agreed to by Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee will be able to inquire into the efficient administration of the scheme, and we have also promised to publish the company's annual report.
The Bill deliberately makes the terms of the scheme which affect individuals enactable through regulations and subject to the usual form of parliamentary scrutiny, which we are discussing now. It is right to leave the details of administration, which is a different matter, subject to the mechanisms that I have just described, and not to go into the need for a further layer of scrutiny that would be involved in the affirmative procedure on administrative issues. If we start to think about some of the


administrative issues, we see that they are inappropriate for the affirmative procedure. They include such things as contracts of employment for employees and so on. Therefore, we rightly fulfilled our commitment.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to amendment No. 4. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I listened carefully to the debate on that amendment, which we thought was rather ingenious and which dealt with the point that on the first set of regulations there was a greater issue than in subsequent amendments. We were tempted to respond positively during that debate, but we felt that we needed some time for reflection to see whether there were any snags that we had not thought of before we agreed to the amendment. Therefore, we took it away and used the opportunity of the debate in the other place to accept the principle of it. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman that he clearly impressed us with the arguments in the debate.
I regret that I cannot say the same about the arguments that we have heard tonight on amendment No. 5. There are a number of problems. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for his kind words and I want to make a point that I hope he will make to his vice-chancellor who felt that the Bill had been considerably improved in the other place. It is important to note that we are accepting most of the amendments from the other place, so if they are improvements, as we agree they are, they have been included in the Bill.
My objection to amendment No. 5, in addition to those that I have stated, is that it would involve a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure that deals with regulations. The Census Act is unusual. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an interesting point when, by a slip of the tongue, he referred to student grants and the negative resolution procedure. In fact, the negative resolution procedure does apply to the regulations for student grants. We are going further in having the affirmative resolution for the first set of regulations. We were originally basing our approach on the student grant system, and the student loan arrangements have pretty well the same implications for a large number of students —the changes in regulations that one might wish to make from time to time—as student grants. There is a clear and direct precedent for what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that it will be necessary from time to time to make changes to regulations, and I accept that. We have said clearly that we shall be reviewing the scheme each year and we would expect to make changes to regulations from time to time. But that is a normal process. The flexibility that we have to do it through regulations gives us, as I have constantly said, the benefit of being able to make those changes quickly.

Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend is dealing with the matter with his customary courtesy, but does he accept that much hardship can be caused in a year? I believe implicitly that my right hon. Friend wants to improve on matters that have gone wrong, but how much better it would be to improve them before they went wrong.

Mr. MacGregor: We shall obviously be looking carefully at all the reviews and listening to many points made by colleagues in the House as well as others outside before we make any regulations. I hope that there would

not be real hardship as a result of a delay from one year to another. I am not persuaded that having a special procedure, as this would be, to apply to those sets of regulations, allowing amendments to be made as they go through the House, would necessarily make that any less likely to occur. I hope that it will not. But it is not unknown for regulations to be wrongly drafted and for other regulations to follow quickly. I have myself, sometimes with some irritation, seen that happen.
But the most important point, apart from the one that I have already made, is that the amendment involves a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure. Some hon. Members may like to see that. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) in relation to Northern Ireland. But it would involve a significant change in the normal procedures of the House, which we should not make lightly in one Bill.
The regulations that we shall be carrying through are similar to a range of other Government schemes where affirmative or negative procedures apply to regulations. In my previous capacity as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I had to take regulations through the House on a considerable number of Government schemes. That is a perfectly normal process and that is what should apply here. Therefore, I stick to my view and invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but to disagree with amendment No. 5 and amendment (a).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 198.

Division No. 160]
[8.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Amos, Alan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bendall, Vivian


Aspinwall, Jack
Benyon, W.






Bevan, David Gilroy
Hague, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayes, Jerry


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hill, James


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Holt, Richard


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Irving, Sir Charles


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Janman, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Maude, Hon Francis


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Gill, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mills, Iain


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mudd, David


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steve





Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Paice, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Summerson, Hugo


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
Viggers, Peter


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cormack, Patrick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Crowther, Stan


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Cummings, John


Beggs, Roy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eadie, Alexander


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Buckley, George J.
Fearn, Ronald


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fyfe, Maria


Clay, Bob
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Gould, Bryan
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Haynes, Frank
O'Brien, William


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Pike, Peter L.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rooker, Jeff


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfedder, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Short, Clare


Knox, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lambie, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lamond, James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stott, Roger


Livsey, Richard
Strang, Gavin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McAvoy, Thomas
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McCartney, Ian
Turner, Dennis


McGrady, Eddie
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Walley, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Wareing, Robert N.


Maclennan, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Madden, Max
Wigley, Dafydd


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Matthew Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 38, after "2" insert
and, as respects institutions in Northern Ireland, the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2").

Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 13, leave out from first "to" to "loans" in line 15 and insert
take such steps (whether by the issue of certificates or otherwise) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of, or in connection with, applications by those students for".
Amendment (a), to amendment No. 11, at end insert 'but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to the Secretary of State should be desirable: and subsequent changes to these regulations shall be subject to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974'.
No. 12, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
including the provision of information when a person ceases to be an eligible student.
No. 13, in page 4, line 28, leave out "discharging functions" and insert
having the function of making loans".
No. 14, in page 4, line 43, leave out "discharging functions" and insert
having the function of making loans".
No. 15, in page 4, line 45, leave out "functions in relation to" and insert "the function of making".

Mr. Jackson: Amendments Nos. 6 and 15 concern the role of the academic institutions in the scheme. In practice that role is limited—but knowing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his taste for detail, I shall specify what it is.
The institutions will identify students, certify their eligibility for loans, certify the level of loan to which the student is entitled, hand forms to students, keep copies of documents for audit purposes, and inform the company if a student leaves a course prematurely. Institutions are not to be involved in the application process. Students will apply for a loan direct to the company, by post. All further communications will be between the student and the company.
We aim at ensuring that loans reach eligible students quickly and efficiently and at striking a balance between the work involved for the institutions, the responsibilities that rightly fall to the individual student, and proper protection for public money—which is a very important consideration. We believe that the proposed certification and application process meets those objectives.
I recognise that Parliament is interested in the question of payment to the institutions. Education departments are discussing certification and application processes with the institutions. An initial meeting was held yesterday at which payment was on the agenda, and we shall make an announcement to the House in due course. We shall work closely with the institutions, as we always do.
The company and the institutions have a mutual interest in developing an effective working relationship that benefits students and taxpayers. It is correct to take a general power on the face of the Bill. We were invited to do so by the vice-chancellors and directors of the polytechnics, and we have done so in a form that gives us flexibility to make minor changes if they are needed in the future.
It is correct also to set out the precise role of the institutions in regulations, and to let Parliament debate those regulations when they are first made. Therefore, I commend those amendments to the House.
I cannot do the same in respect of amendment (a), which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will


speak to. Discussions are already taking place between education departments and representatives of institutions, and the Government have already said that they are willing to make payments to institutions. Costs were discussed at yesterday's meeting with representative bodies, so amendment (a) is unnecessary. I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to see that we are joined for this part of the debate at least by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who is campaign organiser for the leadership aspirations of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West was absent from our earlier debate on the timetable motion, when I was able to quote his sage words about the comparisons between this fandango of a scheme and the poll tax.
The Secretary of State referred at the end of his speech on the timetable motion to remarks by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and tried to insinuate that it supported the scheme.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It supports the principle.

Mr. Straw: I presume the hon. Lady means the principle, not principal—but in no sense does that committee support the principle of the scheme.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Willl the hon. Gentleman at least admit that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is in favour of a loans scheme, supplemented of course by grants?

Mr. Straw: The committee has spoken only in general terms about a scheme under which those who benefit from higher education should make a contribution towards it. That is not the principle of a loan, but it is a principle to which we can all subscribe. I happily subscribe to such a concept, which is why I support the principle that people who earn more should pay more through taxation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is wriggling.

Mr. Straw: I am not wriggling. I am standing firm. It is the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who are wriggling. They both tried to insinuate that the Commitee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is behind the scheme, but in fact it fully opposes the scheme. That is why the Government had to introduce amendments in another place.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening, because I was careful to say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals subscribes to the principle of what I quoted from the Committee's own document. I agree that it was not the student loans scheme, but the principle. It had been advocating a form of graduate tax, and I have set out on several occasions why I think that that is not an acceptable way forward.

Mr. Straw: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is in trouble with the scheme, if he does not understand the difference between this loans scheme and a

scheme of graduate tax, and there is a world of difference between the principles involved. The principle of a graduate tax is that what people pay back is not related to what they receive by way of maintenance support while they are at university or college. It is related solely to their income after they have graduated.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Even if they graduated abroad?

Mr. Straw: I leave aside the question whether they graduated abroad. Even if they graduated at Lancaster university, they would, under a graduate tax, receive grant support related to their income position and that of their parents at the time when they went on that course. What they paid by way of a tax would relate to their income thereafter. The two would not be related. There is a complete distinction between a graduate tax, which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is supporting, and the Government scheme, and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West—the same can be said of his choice of leadership candidate—is aware of the difference.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not distinguish those who—such as a couple of sons of mine—graduated abroad. They would be paying graduate tax although they had not received the benefit of a university education in this country. That could happen to any number of people who went abroad, who would still be paying, unjustly, not having received the benefit of a university education in this country.

Mr. Straw: Should a graduate tax ever come before the House, I would agree with the hon. Lady that she had a strong point. Although I would have to think about it, I would almost certainly be on her side in saying that those who received their higher education completely outside this country, and for whom the taxpayers here had not paid a penny piece, would find it unjust if they then had to pay the graduate tax.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is supporting. I thought, from what he said on an earlier amendment, that he was supporting the position of the vice-chancellors. The principle of their scheme is related to income—the fact of having higher education means that one will have a higher tax rate because one has had the privilege of higher education. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?

Mr. Straw: I am not supporting the position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I was offering some education and illumination—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Ah.

Mr. Straw: —to the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary about the difference between what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was proposing and the Government loans scheme, because it is dissembling in the extreme to suggest that the vice-chancellors are supporting even the principle of the Government scheme.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been clear from before the Bill until now. It is that the vice-chancellors have always accepted the principle that those who


graduate should contribute to society consequentially. But they have always strongly opposed the principle that people should have to borrow, in whole or in part, before and during the time that they undertake their education at universities and colleges. They take that view because they regard the latter as a deterrent and the former as no deterrent but, rather, as a fair way of recompensing for academic rewards attained.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The best sign of the fact that the vice-chancellors do not support the Bill is that they have refused to co-operate with the Bill unless forced to do so by law. The provisions that the Government have been forced to put into the Bill are in amendment No. 11 from the other place. That gives the Secretary of State power to require institutions to administer part of the scheme. The vice-chancellors, polytechnic directors and other college directors have made it crystal clear in terms, in writing to the Secretary of State, that they would not co-operate unless they were forced to do so, and that is why we have the Government proposals now.
The Under-Secretary tried to give what he described as some detail about the administrative arrangements that were being proposed by his Department, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and he said that in due course the House would be informed. He said that because of that, and because it looked as if a hunky-dory scheme with the vice-chancellors was on the road, there was no need for our amendment, which picks up the wording of amendment No. 11, but adds that it should not operate
before consultation with, and the provision of full compensation for, the institutions concerned.
As his Department has already given more detail to the press than the Minister has given to the House, it might be helpful if I read out the detail that is being offered.
It is proposed that for each student who fills in, and has certified by a university or college administration, a Student Loans Company form, the institution concerned should receive the princely sum of £3·50. Whether that is an adequate sum for all the training of staff that will be required and for the administration of the system and the certification remains to be seen.
I have with me a wonderful letter from the chairman of the Student Loans Company—the chairman of a nationalised board; I hope that it is being reported to the Prime Minister that she has presided over the nationalisation of a body that was to be wholly in the private sector—with a most felicitous choice of wording. Mr. Vereker writes:
I also explained that Ministers have decided that the maximum payment per eligibility certificate will be £3·50, but that this will be subject to an incentive regime.
What a choice of words—a regime involving incentives. He continues:
I offered you a choice of incentive regimes … a regime rewarding a high rate of correctly completed forms, whereby institutions would receive £3·50 for each form if 80 per cent. of the forms received in a given period were correct, but £2 per form if the 80 per cent threshold was not met, or …a regime rewarding correct completion and penalising incorrect completion, whereby institutions would receive £3·50 for each correctly completed form and nothing for incorrect forms.
After that choice of incentive regimes, the veritable Mr. Vereker goes on:

We agree that you and the others represented would endeavour to reach a consensus as to which of these incentive regimes you would prefer, and let me know in writing by the end of the week … But"—
to make it clear that it is a fatuous choice—in other words, no choice at all—
I stand ready to convene a further meeting if that would he helpful … I recognise that institutional representatives may not reach agreement among themselves on which incentive regime is to be preferred, in which case Ministers reserve the right to decide.
It is clear that the time of senior officials is wasted, as a result of this crazy scheme, on devising incentive regimes by which institutions shall receive £3·50 for each form if 80 per cent. of them are received in a given period, but £2 for those which are incorrect, or £3·50 for each correctly completed form, and nothing for incorrect forms.
One wonders whether a standard assessment test will be established, to decide whether a form is correct or incorrect, and whether true facts will be specified in an order laid by the Secretary of State, with attainment targets—Mr. Vereker says that there probably will be attainment targets for the completion of forms. Probably, the view of the School Examinations and Assessment Council will be sought before final decisions are made on whether a form has been filled in correctly.
We believe that if this onerous requirement is to be placed on institutions, they must be adequately compensated for it and they must be properly consulted. The Secretary of State cannot deny that people should be consulted. Indeed, the letter from Mr. Vereker says—

Mr. Jackson: We are consulting people.

Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary says that the Government are. I expect that he also does not wish to deny that there should be proper compensation. If he denies neither, why can we not have a requirement for consultation written into the Bill?
One other aspect of this set of amendments, which has vexed Opposition Members a great deal, is the reference in the Bill, through amendment No. 6, to Northern Ireland. It is well known in the House—it is not necessary for me to repeat it now—that large chunks of legislation have to be pushed through by affirmative resolution. Measures that would take days, weeks or months if they referred to England, Scotland or Wales are allowed an hour and a half. For example, we had the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was discussed for one and a half hours on 30 December—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Three hours.

Mr. Straw: Yes, three hours. That order contained 167 paragraphs and 10 schedules and was almost as large as the Education Reform Act 1988, but it was pushed through the House in less than an evening. All that can be said for the present statutory provisions on Northern Ireland is that there have to be affirmative resolutions before legislation relating to Northern Ireland comes into force. In the Bill, the provisions, including amendment No. 6, mean that the Secretary of State is able to introduce the student loans system into Northern Ireland simply by a negative resolution. That is wholly unacceptable and insulting to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, as he anticipated that I would be, for giving us some information. One of the great battles during the


various stages of the Bill has been to obtain information. That we have had to wait until the last possible moment—literally—before we get some information is consistent with the practice of the Government.
I have two comments to make on the substantive administrative issues, and one comment on Northern Ireland in relation to this group of amendments.
As the Under-Secretary will probably acknowledge, it was just the sort of information he supplied on the involvement of institutions that we have demanded from the beginning. We asked what the work of universities, polytechnics and colleges would be. Clearly it took a long time to work that out. It is helpful that at least it has been recognised that there needs to be a framework for the work done by the institutions, and it would have been helpful if we had been supplied with that information at the beginning of parliamentary debate on the Bill.
The most important point that remains to be discussed is that alluded to by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—recompense for institutions. The institutions have consistently gone on record as opposing the Bill. They have never resiled from that position. They are against the Bill and they believe that it is detrimental to higher education. The parliamentary private secretary shakes his head, but he well knows that the institutions have consistently said that. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—he is not a parliamentary private secretary, but he was in Committee, and he is sitting behind the Minister. We have clearly understood that that is the case throughout proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made it clear, none the less, that as they would be required by law to carry out certain duties obviously they have no choice but to obey. The Government responded by saying that they realised it was not a scheme that the Committee liked but that they were going to impose it, in spite of advice to the contrary, and that they would legislate to ensure that the institutions could not escape from it. Therefore, the issue of financial recompense remains. I hope that during the present negotiations—whether they are conducted by the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary or another Minister—they will recognise that the institutions must be properly paid for the functions that they are to perform.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seems to think that academic Britain is wallowing in unusual and unique extravagance, but that is not the case. She thinks that it is suddenly the recipient of Government largesse, the like of which it has never seen before. One only has to ask. Any vice-chancellor or principal will say that they are particularly strapped and that there are many things that they cannot do, not least in research and postgraduate work. They cannot afford to make a contribution to the running of a student finance scheme, when in the past they have not had to make a contribution.
Under the present regime it is the local authority which administers grants that students apply for, and the institutions do not have to play a part in that. The Bill proposes a quango. One of the extraordinary features of the student loans scheme is that the Government are effectively setting up a nationalised company to carry out the scheme. The Bill will also require universities to carry

out extra tasks. I hope that the Government will recognise that it is important that the institutions must be properly recompensed. My noble Friend Lady Seear and many others in the other place put that point across as stongly as they could.
8.45 pm
As the Department of Education and Science is thinking of compensating universities, it might be nice if they passed a message to their friends in the Department of the Environment suggesting that it might compensate local government which is having to administer the poll tax without being granted adequate money to do so, particularly in the light of yesterday's announcement.
One amendment in this group relates specifically to Northern Ireland. It is logical that there is an amendment that says that, if the Government want to legislate for Northern Ireland, they have the same facility to introduce secondary legislation for Northern Ireland as they do for the rest of the country. It would be illogical if that were not the case. There may be comments from colleagues representing Northern Ireland on this issue. Throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses, there has been no enthusiasm, as far as I am aware, for the proposals in Northern Ireland from either institutions or students. Therefore, I expect that there will be opposition tonight to the idea that we should give Parliament and Government the wherewithal to legislate for Northern Ireland.
The view of the institutions, the students and all those consulted so far in Northern Ireland is as strong as it ever was. They believe that the scheme will be particularly harmful to them. Like Scottish institutions, they consider themselves as having a particular problem and in many ways being particularly vulnerable. It is a pity that the Government did not listen to their words of warning. I hope that institutions in Northern Ireland as well as in Scotland will not suffer too harshly as a result.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I agree with what has been said about students from Northern Ireland. I say "from Northern Ireland" because many of them are educated on this side of the water and that interchange works in the other direction too, and the Ulster Unionists party has always encouraged that.
I reinforce the plea that students in Northern Ireland should not be further disadvantaged because of the peculiar arrangements we have for governing Northern Ireland from this place. This is not the time to engage in a history lesson on how we came to be in this difficult situation. When direct rule was imposed as a temporary measure 18 years ago, Northern Ireland legislation was moved down one peg. Primary legislation became secondary, and secondary went into third place and so forth. That has deprived Members of this House, whatever constituency in the United Kingdom they represent, of the opportunity to scrutinise Northern Ireland legislation in the way that we are entitled to do.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) properly drew attention to the vast volume of education reform legislation for Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that it has to be dealt with in three hours and that it cannot be amended. Even if we had been able to convince the team of Northern Ireland Ministers on the Treasury Bench that there was a misprint in line 14, they could do nothing about it. That illustrates how futile the exercise is.


The hon. Member for Blackburn also said that if that volume of Northern Ireland legislation had been Great Britain legislation it would have taken weeks rather than just three hours to go through the House. However, I commend to Ministers a simple device. All that they need to do when they next introduce a Bill dealing with education or any other matter is simply to insert a clause which specifies that, when the Bill becomes an Act, it will apply to Northern Ireland. Then we should not have to sit up late at night debating an Order in Council which in most cases contains exactly the same provisions as those which have been passed by the House for Great Britain.
Some hon. Members, some of whom are here tonight, have written in their constituency magazines how frightfully boring it is to be have to here late at night listening to the Irish drivelling on about Orders in Council. If they were to apply a little pressure to the business managers, I suggest that they would be relieved of that tedium late at night. We should be happy to engage openly—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Who said that?

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not want to name names, but I can identify some hon Members who are present who have said precisely that.
Let us put an end to such nonsense. We shall not then need the admirable amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends
Given the injustice that arises from such a peculiar system for governing Northern Ireland, I hope that the House will support the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We do not want to place a further hurdle in the paths of those who legislate for Northern Ireland and of those hon. Members who have the privilege of attempting to scrutinise the legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his reading of the Standing Committee proceedings that we sought to incorporate the principle which he supports: that legislation should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. However, in this case we tried diligently to ensure that the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland because it is an unpopular measure. We succeeded on the first count but, unfortunately, not on the second. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have been better had we succeeded on both.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who served on the Committee and who did their best to look after our part of the United Kingdom.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are few hon. Members in the Chamber. I simply cannot believe that any of my colleagues who are here would have made the discourteous remark which the right hon. Gentleman has alleged. If he will not say who said that, he casts aspersions on us all.

Mr. Molyneaux: I undertake to convey in private to the hon. Lady the identity of the hon. Member whose article I resented.
I hope that the same diligence will be shown if any attempt is made to introduce the poll tax to Northern

Ireland. The Government have not yet succeeded in applying it there. One of the reasons may be the difficulty of finding volunteers to collect it in Crossmaglen.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I should be surprised if Conservative Members criticised our debates on Northern Ireland. Among those who are here, I do not see any who attended the numerous hour and a half or three hour debates on Northern Ireland. I should welcome the involvement of more hon. Members in Northern Ireland debates, despite the fact that they are held late at night and that no amendments can be made to Northern Ireland orders. The position of Northern Ireland was dealt with in Committee and on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) introduced amendments on Report.

Mr. James Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Conservative Members who have had some contact with Northern Ireland, perhaps as parliamentary private secretaries in the Northern Ireland Department, acknowledge freely the valuable contribution that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament make to our debates? We also acknowledge the quality of education in the Province—but there, of course, they have retained the grammar schools. We could learn a lesson from that.

Mr. Barnes: My point is that the quality of Northern Ireland debates and our understanding of its problems would benefit from the participation of many more hon. Members in our late night debates. If more hon. Members discussed economic and social developments in Northern Ireland and the daily bread-and-butter issues of Northern Ireland politics, we might be able to make a significant contribution towards the solution of the problems there. The House is full only when a dramatic terrorist outrage is being discussed. There is great concern about student loans because so many working class people and women in Northern Ireland take advantage of education. Their increased participation ought to be welcomed.
When the amendments were moved by the Minister, he did not refer to Lords amendment No. 6. It was a general introduction. Nevertheless, this is an amendment that deals specifically with Northern Ireland. Clause 4(4) refers to the fact that, apart from subsection (2), the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) refers to the fact that Northern Ireland will not be allowed to use the affirmative resolution procedure, which would automatically lead to an hour and half debate. Only the negative resolution procedure will be allowed. It would therefore have to be forced on to the agenda, presumably by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, if they so wished.
The Government intend to stick the student loans provision on to Northern Ireland. They said that a further debate on Northern Ireland matters would not be needed because Northern Ireland was already covered by the earlier measure. So quite a strange arrangement exists which just assumes that when a particular piece of legislation is passed it will go for Northern Ireland as well, although Northern Ireland is specifically excluded from the coverage of the Bill.
It is an unfortunate arrangement. Apart from the problems of not being allowed in the House to amend resolutions and orders on Northern Ireland, if there are to be certain areas that are just ruled out because it has already been assumed that the decisions coming from the


Department of Education and Science on this occasion are exact replicas of what has been produced before, we will be in a strange procedural position as regards Northern Ireland. That is not unusual on this Bill.
When the amendment is added to the subsection that I read out earlier, it would read:
Except for section 2 and, as respects institutions in Northern Ireland, the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 of schedule 2, this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.
So there is to be another bit that is to extend to Northern Ireland.
As I understand it, and as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) outlined it, the problem was that it had not been realised that many students from Northern Ireland studying in another part of the United Kingdom would require student loans under these provisions and were not being catered for by the legislation. Someone had missed this out. It had been overlooked, despite the fact that we had had no timetable provision. We had gradual development through Committee and full debate and discussion in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, and still it had not been discovered that Northern Ireland was not included. It should not have been for Opposition Members to produce an amendment on this.
Quite a good arrangement could exist whereby, if Northern Ireland students in Northern Ireland, perhaps temporarily, were not operating under this law but under grant provision, those who came to England, Wales and Scotland to study should maintain their grants under it as well.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Member agree that it is a matter of regret that parents who pay full rates at the level deemed appropriate in Northern Ireland are adversely treated when their children attend universities on the mainland and, in addition, are now required to pay poll tax?

9 pm

Mr. Barnes: A very strange situation exists with regard to poll tax. We are talking about operations equivalent to local education authorities and their provision of grants and now also the operation of loans. We have a different system of funding local government, or the equivalent of local government, provisions that exist in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It may be that the Government will discover as they go along, if they are not going to give the advantages, as they see them, of the community charge to Northern Ireland, that they are in some kind of inconsistency. They may, therefore, not want to introduce exactly the same provisions for Northern Ireland students going to Northern Ireland universities as they are now placing on other Northern Ireland students attending universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. They could yet be in a constitutional conundrum.
What I strongly object to is the assumption that a measure to be brought before us on some future occasion will be an exact replica of the measure now in front of us and that therefore other amendments have to be made in order to fit in with the legislation at this stage, so that the whole thing will work together within some general

pattern. There is something nonsensical in the way in which we deal with Northern Ireland measures, which I referred to on earlier amendments, when there was a possibility that we could have had in front of us a procedure for student loans where proposals put before us would not just be dealt with by affirmative resolutions but could be amended by us. There would be some sense in that being added to Northern Ireland legislation, and perhaps a useful start could be made with regard to student loans.

Mr. Jackson: May I first join the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in welcoming the presence in the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). The whole House knows of his great interest in these matters. If I may take this opportunity, I would like to say how much I appreciate the support that he has given to our proposals.

Mr. Straw: I wonder if the Under-Secretary is trying to invite the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to ensure that he is borne in mind under a Heseltine administration.

Mr. Jackson: I would not dream of allowing such considerations to enter my mind.
I was amused by the hon. Member for Blackburn's hair-splitting about the difference between principles and principals. It reminded me of the old crack about the collective noun for a collection of vice-chancellors being a lack of principals. The hon. Gentleman referred to the principle of loans, but the vice-chancellors are on common ground with the Government in affirming that graduates should make payments in respect of their maintenance over and beyond their normal tax obligations. We are all agreed—and Opposition spokesmen in another place were agreed—on the fundamental principle of the anticipation by students of some of their future earnings as graduates.
Northern Ireland has been the subject of some misconception during the debate in the remarks of the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Southwark and Bermondsey, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Amendment No. 6 does not introduce the loans scheme into Northern Ireland as has been implied; it is purely and simply a consequential amendment which flows from the other amendments, but that is not what appeared to be understood by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
Amendment No. 6 is consequential on the other amendments which introduce various conditions in relation to institutions. We are requiring Northern Ireland institutions to certify institutions originating from Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, that is a logical implication of the votes in both Houses to include students at Northern Ireland institutions within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If I have not understood what was being said, perhaps the Minister can explain a bit more clearly. I was arguing that if people from Northern Ireland study in England, Scotland or Wales, some institutional arrangements are needed in the same way as for other students. Is that the case?

Mr. Jackson: Having served with the hon. Gentleman on the Standing Committee, I am afraid that he tempts me to say that I am not sure that he would benefit from an explanation.


I noted the rather discouraging remarks from the hon. Member for Blackburn about the idea of incentive regimes. The hon. Gentleman should start to learn about such ideas. I understood that it was Labour party policy now to be converted to the idea of market economics. When he investigates that idea, he will find that the concept of income incentive regimes is a natural one.

Mr. Andrew Smith: While we are learning about incentive regimes, if the Minister thinks that it is worthwhile to pay £3·50 to institutions for every correctly completed certification form, how much will he pay institutions for each completed application for access funds and for the processing of those access funds, which will cost a great deal more than certifying students for eligibility loans?

Mr. Jackson: There were many occasions on which the Standing Committee went into seminar mode, but the House would not thank me for doing that now, because we want to press on with the amendments.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I noticed that neither the hon. Member for Blackburn nor the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, with whom it is always such a pleasure to debate, gave any ground for dissenting from our assessment of £3·50 per student account as an appropriate sum. The hon. Member for Blackburn also confirmed that the Government are consulting the institutions. In the circumstances, I construe that as an admission that the amendment is unnecessary and I recommend accordingly that the House rejects it.

Mr. Straw: I should like briefly to refer to our amendment to Lords amendment No. 11. If hon. Members were in any doubt about the need to write into the Bill a requirement for the Government first to consult and then to pay full compensation for operating the ramshackle scheme, those doubts would be allayed entirely by the complete failure of the Minister to answer a simple and direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I am not allowed to refer to the officials in the Box, but if the Under-Secretary looks to his left he will notice that someone is scribbling an answer to be passed to him. If he wishes to intervene, I shall allow him to read the answer.

Mr. Jackson: I did not answer the question because I am interested in making progress. The question related to a matter that is not the subject of any amendment before us.

Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary is wrong. The matter relates to Lords amendment No. 11 and to amendment (a) to that amendment. The regulations will require the institutions to administer a scheme to which they object. Amendment (a) provides that there should be full consultation and compensation before the regulations come into force. The Under-Secretary showed that he has not even thought about the need for compensation in respect of one important aspect of the operation of the Government's new policies on student maintenance—the access funds. How will the universities and colleges be compensated for operating those funds?

Mr. Jackson: Of course the Government have thought about the point. Lords amendment No. 11 does not refer to consultation or to compensation for work connected with the access funds.

Mr. Straw: Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 11 refers to consultation on and compensation for operating the student loan scheme. Throughout all the debates, the Government have endlessly sought to provide a fig leaf for their indignity and embarrassment about the scheme by referring to the loans scheme. The UnderSecretary cannot have it both ways—parading the access funds when it suits him, but when it does not, pretending that they are not part of the scheme. The only justification that he has been able to give for the removal of housing benefit, which we do not accept, is the existence of some measly access funds, which will barely compensate for the loss of housing benefit at even one university.
I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No. 6.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 191.

Division No. 161]
[9.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Allason, Rupert
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David
Day, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fry, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gow, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal


Chope, Christopher
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)






Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Ground, Patrick
Neale, Gerrard


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hawkins, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Portillo, Michael


Holt, Richard
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Irving, Sir Charles
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jack, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Sims, Roger


Janman, Tim
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Speller, Tony


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Lewis


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Summerson, Hugo


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Thornton, Malcolm


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trotter, Neville


Mans, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marland, Paul
Viggers, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walden, George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waller, Gary


Mellor, David
Ward, John


Miller, Sir Hal
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, Sir David
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Sir Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wilshire, David





Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Tom Sackvile.


Younger, Rt Hon George





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Allen, Graham
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter


Armstrong, Hilary
Harman, Ms Harriet


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Haynes, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Henderson, Doug


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Beckett, Margaret
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Beggs, Roy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beith, A. J.
Home Robertson, John


Bell, Stuart
Hood, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Doug


Blunkett, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Buckley, George J.
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Kilfedder, James


Callaghan, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lambie, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lamond, James


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Loyden, Eddie


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAllion, John


Cohen, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McCartney, Ian


Corbett, Robin
McGrady, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
Maclennan, Robert


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eadie, Alexander
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fearn, Ronald
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Radice, Giles


Gould, Bryan
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Redmond, Martin






Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Reid, Dr John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Rhodes James, Robert
Snape, Peter


Richardson, Jo
Spearing, Nigel


Robertson, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


Rooker, Jeff
Strang, Gavin


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Straw, Jack


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Salmond, Alex
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Sedgemore, Brian
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Turner, Dennis


Short, Clare
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

"(1A) The maximum amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above for the loan to be made to a student in any year shall not exceed—
(a) the amount specified as the ordinary maintenance requirement for students of the class of description to which he belongs by regulations having effect for that year under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 (mandatory awards); or
(b) if no such amount is specified for students of the class or description to which he belongs, such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for students of that class or description having regard to the amount specified as mentioned in paragraph (a) above;
but regulations, other than the first, made under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above may prescribe a higher maximum if a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), leave out lines 13 to 16.
With four debates to get through in one hour and 13 minutes, under the draconian guillotine procedure, I shall be brief.
Lords amendment No. 7 concedes that which the Government would not concede in Committee or in the House previously, that incorporated in the legislation should be the requirement that the loan amount should not exceed the operative amount of grant, thereby setting the 50:50 parity between loan and grant.
So far, so good. The bad aspect of the Lords amendment is contained in the lines which our amendment proposes to delete, which state that a higher maximum may be prescribed if a draft of the regulations is
laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
That contradicts the concession given in the Lords by saying, albeit through affirmative resolution procedure, that the proportion of the loan could be increased. That is important, because we have always protested that the Government intend not merely to have a top-up loan scheme, but a loan scheme which supplements, and then supplants, grants.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) gave the game away in the debate on the guillotine motion—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: She is very unrepresentative.

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Worthington, Tony


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Frank Cook and


Winnick, David
Mr. Allen McKay


Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2

LOANS FOR STUDENTS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—

Mr. Smith: She is about as unrepresentative as the right-wing lunatics who have been advising the Government all the way through this steady march towards education depending on ability to pay rather than ability to benefit.
It is because we believe that the ability to benefit should be the criterion for access to higher education that we wanted the Government to accept the full spirit and wording of the amendments initiated by our noble Friends in the Lords, and it is why we wish that they had not added in this opportunity for a higher proportion of loan to be brought in by secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure.
If this top-up loan scheme is truly a scheme, as the Government have said, based on parity between loans and grant, they should be prepared to accept that definition in the primary legislation and recognise that further primary legislation would be necessary to change it. By conceding only what they have conceded, the Government have given away their real intention to go further down this slippery slope and make access to higher education depend on ability to pay. That is wholly unacceptable to us and to most of the public.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The only comment I want to make about the sedentary disclaimer about the views of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and their representatives of the Tory party is that Conservative politicians who represent Essex constituencies always seem to be the most hard-line brand of Toryism personified. If anyone wants to hear liberal views about education I suggest he stays away from the boundaries of Essex. I do not know what the poor people of Essex have done to deserve such a collection of right wingers as they enjoy now and have enjoyed in the past—

Mr. Pawsey: And they have huge majorities.

Mr. Hughes: Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman says, some of them do. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) reminded us, they include among their number another candidate for the Tory party succession—the right hon. member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
I support the Opposition amendment. The Lords amendment was passed because the Government would not concede the principle that, when the regulation was drafted, it would not allow loans to go up beyond 50 per cent. There is so much opposition to the principle that loans should exist at all, let alone that they should go up to 50 per cent. of total funding for students, that it would have been enough to hold the line at that. The consensus in another place was that, if it was Government policy to change the system of fully funded student grants so that only half of students' funding came from grants, that should at least be written into the Bill. It would have been preferable if the last lines of the Lords amendment had been amended to take account of that.
One of the great concerns that has not been allayed throughout all our deliberations is the fear that, if students are required to decide to go on to higher education but to borrow to fund it, that in itself will prove a disincentive; and the greater the borrowing, the more of a disincentive it will prove.
If the Government argue that applications this year are up, as they are, those who do not believe that loans will be a disincentive should remember that that increase is on the basis of a grant system and that, even if there is only a small, although noticeable, effect on the scheme at the beginning, it could become more damaging the higher the percentage of money loaned in relation to the grant.
No member of the Committee, including Ministers, could discover one country that has gone from a grant system to a grant and loan system. Therefore, there is no precedent for the argument that a loan system, even in part, would not be a disincentive. If our argument that it will be a disincentive proves wrong, we shall admit it, but Ministers should not take the risk. That is why the proposal is flawed.

Mr. Win Griffiths: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is strange that the Government should accept the need to write into the Bill that, in the fulness of time, the 50:50 parity proposal will come into being, yet in the same amendment provide to allow that to be changed without going through the process of primary legislation.
We are talking about a significant number of students who would be affected if the legislation were in place today. I elicited from the Department of Education and Science the fact that almost 40 per cent. of all students currently studying received the full mandatory award. Some 151,000 students in universities, polytechnics and other higher education institutions will be dramatically affected by the proposal.

Mr. Jackson: They will have more money.

Mr. Griffiths: Some will have more money, but they will have to pay the money back. Moreover, the Minister and his colleagues have consistently refused to tell us how many students currently receive housing benefit of more than £420 a year, as the loan is planned to be in the first year, and the £310 it is planned to be in the last year. They

have refused to give that information, because the likelihood is that thousands upon thousands of students will be worse off.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman says that students will have to pay back the loans, but he omitted to mention that they will not have to pay back anything until they are earning £11,500, which, compared with the income of some of those who will be contributing to their education, is a substantial income.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Lady is leading me down a path which is not covered by the amendment. However, anyone who chooses to study for a degree, given that they have reasonable qualifications at GCSE and A-level, will have already sacrificed earnings in excess of £50,000 at current rates by the time that they receive their degree. That is the sum that they could have earned by taking a job at 16 or 18. In British Steel, British Gas, Marks and Spencer plc, W. H. Smith and Son, Ltd. or local government, between 16 and 22 an employee would have earned over £50,000. Therefore, people studying at university will experience a loss in real income because they will lose the full grant.
With the passing of time, the grant will have only 50 per cent. of its value, and the rest will be made up by a loan which they will be expected to pay back. That is an additional burden which students have not had. Given the fact that the Government will place an additional burden on students when they go into employment after university—

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His courtesy is always appreciated; I mean that sincerely. Does he not accept that the global value of social security payments in one form or another is about £68 million, whereas the total value of the loan is about £200 million? Therefore, students will receive a substantial additional amount in resources. While I acknowledge the fact that some students will be worse off, we have the access funds. As we have heard from my right hon. Friend, £20 million will be available to help students who are in difficulty because of the loss of housing benefit. Students will be much better off in real terms because of the amount of resources being made available to them, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is threadbare.

Mr. Griffiths: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's point is that, at the moment, it is all hypothetical. We do not know exactly how students will be affected. We do not know how many students who currently receive the full mandatory award will be deemed to be eligible for money from access funds, nor do we know how much they will get, or what the difference will be between the mandatory award which a student currently receives, plus payments like housing benefit, and what he will get in future. The Government cannnot even tell me how many students will be worse off—

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is not denying the figures.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not denying any figures. All I am saying is that it amazes me that a Conservative Member can talk with such confidence about the number who will be better off because of the increase in access funds, given that over 150,000 students receive the full mandatory


award, when the Government cannot tell us how many students will be adversely affected by the introduction of the loan scheme and the loss of housing and other benefits.
The lack of information gives us no confidence in what the Government are trying to do. It is an experiment for a large part of the population on whom we will depend for our well-being and our success in world markets. I am surprised in one way that the Government insist on including in the amendment the ability to vary the figure later without primary legislation. In one sense it astonishes me; on the other hand, when I remember that, previously in his ministerial career, the Secretary of State was in the Treasury, it does not surprise me.
In the White Paper, there was a wonderful catalogue of tables based upon an inflation rate of 3 per cent. into the next century. We remember too that all the calculations were done on the basis of a student population which did not alter. Given all that, we wonder why this provision is in the Bill. It can only be to make it easy to vary the amount later.
It is as though, last June or July, at a private meeting between Treasury and Education Department officials, the Treasury said, "The scheme is costing much more than the Department ever thought, and the Treasury cannot really afford it. You will have to cut, and the only way of doing that is by increasing the size of the loan, and thereby get more money back from the students as soon as their course is finished."

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the country as a whole has a serious problem with growing debt, and that we should as a matter of principle oppose encouraging young people to incur debt for any reason?

Mr. Griffiths: I entirely agree. Given that the Prime Minister herself has said so much about how bad it is for people to get into debt, it is surprising that she now encourages them to do so.
That part of amendment No. 7 that allows the Government to vary the limit without recourse to primary legislation must have the purpose of allowing the Government to reduce the grant, increase the loan and cut costs—which are already running headlong out of control.
I hope that the Government will have the good grace —I know it is late, and that everyone wants to go home —to withdraw the amendment. The Under-Secretary has a gentle smile on his face, and I hope that it is one of agreement.

Mr. Jackson: I hope that I may be allowed to chide the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). He made an excellent contribution in Committee, becoming very involved in all the debates, but he seems to have forgotten about annex D to the White Paper. If he studies that annex, he will find that his arguments about income forgone are completely refuted. At one stage, it seemed as though the hon. Gentleman had learnt that White Paper off by heart. That was a noble exercise on his part. If he will return to it, he will see that his point is met.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Is that the same annex that suggests that there will be no increase in student numbers past the year 2000?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is mixing up his annexes. Annex D presents economic analysis of the difference between personal and social rates of return from higher education.
The Government amendment places on the face of the Bill the provision that a student's maximum loan facility should not exceed his or her maximum grant. It is similar to a probing amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), Oxford, East and Manchester, Blakeley (Mr. Eastham), so I inferred that it would be generally acceptable. In any event, the Government have always made it clear that, when the loans scheme reaches maturity, the value of the loans and the grant will be broadly equal.
We recognise the concern expressed in another place that statutory provision is required to lend weight to the Government's intentions. We have produced an amendment that meets that concern and retains sufficient flexibility to allow future Governments to respond to changing circumstances without fresh primary legislation. If one assumes an inflation rate of 3 per cent. between now and then, that point will not be reached until 2007. If inflation reaches 6 per cent., that point will be reached a couple of years earlier. We shall not reach the 50:50 stage until a long time ahead—several Governments away from the present Government. In fact, we may get to it at about the time of the first Smith Administration—by which I mean, of course, the Andrew Smith Administration.
The amendment allows the loan and grant balance to be altered beyond the 50:50 ratio, but only subject to explicit parliamentary approval. The loan regulations, which would otherwise require the negative resolution procedure beyond the scheme's first year, would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if they were to involve a loan facility exceeding the value of the grant. That, we believe, would allow that first Andrew Smith Administration the flexibility to build on the success of our student loans scheme if it was felt appropriate to do so, but to do so in line with proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Mike Watson: Does the Minister accept that, if the scenario that he is suggesting comes to pass and the loan accounts for more than 50 per cent. of maintenance, the Government will effectively have misled the House and the general public by calling the scheme top-up loans for students? They will not be top-up loans, because they will be more than 50 per cent. He cannot have his cake and eat it.

Mr. Jackson: I refuse to join the hon. Gentleman in speculating about this long-distant horizon. I believe that the scheme will be a great success and that it will be possible for that Smith Administration, in perhaps the middle of the first decade of the next century, to consider how to take the matter further forward.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Are the Government ever surprised when people accuse them of wanting to do things that they pretend they do not want to do—in other words, of having a hidden agenda? It is not surprising that people do not believe the Government when they say that loans will be only 50 per cent., and then write into the legislation a provision saying that they can be more than 50 per cent. Why do Governments bite off more than they can chew and always ask not just for the cake but for something in addition?

Mr. Jackson: I am not surprised. After all, Opposition Members are ingenious in finding hidden agendas, even if they have to invent them. The electorate are more sensible and see through such contentions. They saw through them at the last three general elections, and they will do so again.
The Labour amendment to the amendment would remove the element of flexibility which we wish to leave in place for the benefit of the Smith Administration by requiring primary legislation before the loan facility could exceed the grant value. We think that that would be a waste of parliamentary time. We are thinking about the situation down the track. The affirmative resolution procedure is, we believe, sufficient and ensures that the regulations that would be found unsatisfactory by either House could be voted down.

Question put and negatived.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Because, for reasons given at the start of the debate, Lords amendment No. 8 imposes a charge on the public revenue not authorised by a resolution of the House, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendment is deemed to be disagreed with.
Lords amendment: No. 9 in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
(4) Regulations made under this paragraph shall allow special conditions to be set in respect of repayment of loans for disabled students or graduates.

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, amendment (b) at end insert
'taking into account the loss of social security benefits to deaf students whilst eligible for loans'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient at the same time to discuss amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, at end insert
', and shall be subject to approval of both Houses of Parliament'.
Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
'(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall make such separate provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate with respect to the repayment of loans by borrowers who are disabled.'.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Opposition amendments are designed to strengthen the Lords amendment, not least in respect of some of the most needful of students who are deaf. I congratulate the other place on its achievement in carrying out the intentions of the amendment to which I spoke for the Opposition on Report in the House of Commons.
In this House, the Minister expressed sympathy and gave a half-promise of eventual support. The Lords were no more content with ministerial statements than my hon. Friends and I were here, but they were able to vouchsafe the interests of disabled students in the Division Lobby.
I know that Baroness Darcy de Knayth and Lord Henderson of Brompton were especially instrumental in winning the day and I thank them, as well as my noble Friends in the other place, for both the humanity of their concern and the success of their advocacy.
One financial consequence of disability is the reduced earning power of many disabled graduates, compared with their non-disabled colleagues. In some cases, disabled graduates will remain unemployed and will be unable to repay a loan. Others will earn less and may be burdened by

a loan for longer than their non-disabled colleagues. Sadly, all too many disabled graduates fail to find work or succeed in finding only low-paid employment.
The report on disability in Great Britain from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are actually working. That compares with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse —33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. Those findings shout the need for the action taken by the other place.
The Government's own record, in terms of jobs offered to people with disabilities, is among the worst of all employers. How many registered disabled people does the Department of Education and Science employ? Again, is the Secretary of State aware that the earnings of disabled people who find work, in whatever employment, are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees? Even many disabled people in better financial circumstances have to spend all their disposable income on the extra costs arising from their disability.
The Government tend to dismiss the claims of organisations of and for disabled people about the extra costs of disabled living. Yet there are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who know, from close contacts with their disabled constituents, that the Government's own estimates of the extra costs of disabled living do not match the real costs of disabled people. The fact is that they find it extremely difficult to make ends meet. It may well be that a disabled person will never be able to repay a loan because of the generally lower earnings of disabled graduates. If their earnings are never likely to exceed the 85 per cent. threshold, it is not fair to expect them to have an increasing debt, in cash terms, held against them until it is cancelled when they reach the age of 50 or 60.
There is another important matter that I must raise in the debate. It concerns the Government's intentions in regard to young people who have become disabled after they graduate. How does the Minister intend to approach their problems? Are they to be pursued for the repayment of loans? I have been approached by a number of organisations whose members are deeply concerned about the Government's intentions in regard to people who become disabled after they leave places of higher education. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, will state clearly the Government's intentions as they affect such people. They will suffer the same difficulties, in terms of employment, as other disabled people. They will have the same financial problems. What assurance can the Minister give about the problems that they face?
Time is strictly limited, due to the guillotine. I ask the Secretary of State to appreciate that there is still some uncertainty about his intentions about disabled students. They are looking tonight for a reassuring ministerial statement. I press the Secretary of State to respond positively to their concerns.

10 pm

Mr. Alistair Burt: When the Bill was in Committee, both I and other hon. Members moved a series of amendments relating to disabled students. I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I disagree with his suggestion that the Government did not listen to the views of those who represent disabled people. The Minister with


responsibility for higher education was at pains to speak to those who put forward the case on behalf of disabled students, in particular deaf students, and suggested that further consideration would be given, either in the other place or at another stage, to the points that they had made.
I have made a note of several things that have been done since the Committee, which have given effect to those promises. First, the disabled are now specifically recognised in the Bill. That is provided for in Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 9. Secondly, we asked that the access funds should be increased. We recognised that disabled students might want to have access to those funds for their own purposes. A recent announcement has boosted the access funds. That will help disabled students. Thirdly, on 19 March 1990 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a number of announcements about increases for disabled students. The basic disabled students allowance is to be increased by 30 per cent. in 1990–91.
In addition, another £3,000 will be made available for specialist equipment and £4,000 will be made available for non-medical helpers. That is a direct result of the pressure applied by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to which I pay tribute for the care and concern with which it presented its case on behalf of disabled students. The Government also responded to the representations that were made by hon. Members on both sides in Committee, on this difficult and sensitive subject.
We were deeply impressed by the case put to us by deaf students about the difficulties that they face when they enter higher education. They have to overcome considerable hurdles. Those difficulties are not faced by other students. Deaf students also experience difficulties while going through higher education because of the equipment and non-medical assistance that they need, such as interpreters. I believe that the Government have listened to their case. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I did not say that the Government refused to listen to the organisations representing disabled people. However, they have refused to respond to their concerns. The Lords amendments were carried in spite of, not because of, Ministers' attitudes. I hope that tonight there will be a statement which will reassure those organisations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins me in making that request to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Burt: I go part of the way with the right hon. Gentleman, but I still hold that the Government's response was a little more genuine than he is prepared to concede. The Government's response in the other place showed that more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. John Hannam: My hon. Friend may recall that, on Report, I tabled amendments to help disabled students throughout their period of study and during the repayment period. The Minister with responsibility for higher education accepted the purpose of the amendments and gave an assurance that he would take the necessary steps when the Bill was considered in the other place.

Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will comment on that when he speaks.
I understand that draft regulations relating to disabled students' social security entitlement are presently being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That gives us a further opportunity to press our case on behalf of disabled students. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to do so.
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the attention that he has given to this particularly sensitive matter. Perhaps he has not given us everything that we should have liked, but the Government have moved a long way from the Bill's starting point, when rather too little consideration seemed to be given to the needs of deaf and disabled students. These concerns were raised in Committee, however, and my senior colleagues have listened, and I believe that the Bill will provide the reassurance that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe genuinely requests. I hope that he will be reassured when my right hon. Friend comes to answer.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like others who have spoken on this group of amendments, I intend to be brief because, like the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), I have spoken previously on the needs of disabled students, not in Committee because I was not a member of the Committee, but as far back as 20 October when we discussed the White Paper, and on Report in the House.
In welcoming the announcements made by the Government, we must all pay tribute to the strength of feeling on both sides of the House and to the work of the organisations based outwith the House, which so effectively represent the needs of disabled people everywhere.
If certain hon. Members tend to sound grudging, it is perhaps because many of us would have expected the Government automatically to give consideration to those students in the initial drafting of the Bill. It is sad that we have had to get over so many hurdles to ensure that those genuine needs are recognised.
I have some brief questions to put to the Secretary of State, which I hope that he will be able to answer, particularly in view of the fact that we have not yet had detailed statements of the exact workings of the figures that have been announced. Can he tell us exactly how the funds will be administered? There is an important issue at stake. In Scotland, for example, will the regional education authorities, along with the Scottish Education Department, be involved in deciding how the funds are administered and how disabled students will have access to the extra money? It is not clear whether there will be a cash limit on the amount made available to disabled students. How will the priorities be decided? Who will take those decisions? That is vital to our students, because disability comes in many forms and requires different attitudes and treatment.
I should like again to refer to housing benefit as it affects some of our disabled students. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to discuss amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which relate specifically to this issue, because of privilege. However, it has been pointed out, both in the other place and in letters that many of us have received from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, that, while housing benefit has been defined as continuing to be available to some disabled students, it will certainly not be available to all. A large number of disabled people who are


not eligible for disability premium or severe disability premium will therefore not be eligible for housing benefit; yet housing benefit could be of key importance to disabled students in helping them to enter higher education or to continue their studies. Can the Minister clarify whether all students suffering from deafness, blindness, dyslexia, arthritis or any recognised disability will have the right to apply for housing benefit during the course of studies? Such a guarantee would receive a broad welcome from all the organisations involved in representing the needs of the disabled.
While welcoming the announcements, I hope that the Secretary of State will give us further details, and perhaps tell us when the social security offices will be able to spell out in more detail the exact implications of previous statements. Will there be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to discuss them with the Secretary of State? I certainly hope that he will make a public statement and allow us to debate the matter.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Lady agree that income support and housing benefit are in no way intended to meet the needs of disability, but are intended to meet the basic needs of living? Those benefits do not in any way meet the needs of deaf or otherwise disabled students, so additional benefits are required.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point, and given his recognised knowledge of disability, I am sure that the Secretary of State will take it into account.
I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the House is given full details so that we can consider the matter with clear minds and a determined attitude, to ensure that no disabled students are disadvantaged.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I, too, shall be brief.
I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Government's moves to help disabled students, but let us not give the impression that it was an easy process. There was considerable debate in Committee and much lobbying behind the scenes, and, perhaps because of the way in which it is worded, the Government amendment, perhaps unintentionally, provides that the special conditions will apply only to borrowers who are disabled and not to those who were able-bodied when they borrowed the money but became disabled later, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
I should like to mention a case to illustrate the essential need to consider disabled students and to take a decision, and to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that, when assessing the income of disabled graduates, the Government will take fully into account that part of their income which is needed to cover the cost of disablement. The case also illustrates the inadequacy of the disabled students allowance. It involves a social work student in her second year at a midlands university. She is seriously contemplating giving up her studies and her ambition to become a social worker working with disabled people. She is 25 years old, she has cerebral palsy, is physically unable to write and has severe mobility problems.
At the beginning of her course she had to spend £2,500 on an adapted computer with twin disk drive and original commands plus an adapter printer. In addition, she has had to find £90 a month to pay two part-time carers to

drive her to the campus as that is the only feasible means of transport available. Out of a maximum of £765 disabled students allowance, which is now going up to £1,000, she has had to pay £350 a year out of her maintenance grant towards those extra costs. She will have those extra costs after she graduates and, hopefully, finds the employment to which she aspires.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that disabled students' extra needs are taken fully into account when assessing their disposable income and the level at which they trigger off their repayments?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the tribute paid to the concessions made by the Government and to the work of those who represent the disabled. They have made strong representations to all concerned and have persuasively made their case.
It is sad that the amazing disadvantages in education faced by many disabled people have not been recognised. Anyone who has looked into the additional costs and disadvantages experienced by disabled people knows that considerable financial prejudice is suffered by anyone who is deaf, blind or physically or mentally disabled.
10.15 pm
I hope that the Secretary of State will answer hon. Members' questions, but I have a further question. Two issues arise from Government amendment (a) and Lords amendment No. 9 which I hope the Secretary of State will address. First, what are the implications of Government amendment (a) for people who become disabled later in life? Secondly, what does he intend by the phrase
Shall make such separate provision
as he considers appropriate?
Separate provision may mean that mobility or attendance allowance is excluded from a disabled person's income for the purpose of calculating the method or time of repayment. If that is so, separate provision should be automatic, because attendance and mobility allowance should not be included. They compensate for other needs and should be discounted, as they are for tax purposes.
I hope that that is not the meaning of Government amendment (a), because if it is it means that no concession is being made. I hope that it means that substantial other improvements will be made in the financial terms for disabled people. Unless the Secretary of State sets out the details, we shall be sceptical. I hope that he will give detailed answers and thereby allay the continuing concerns of those for whom this is probably the most important debate on the Bill

Mr. MacGregor: I shall be brief, because I know that the House wishes to move to the other debates, but in so doing I shall endeavour to answer all the questions that have been asked.
The Government accept the principle of Lords amendment No. 9, which was made on Third Reading in the other place. Government amendment (a) is essentially a tidying amendment.
Lords amendment No. 9 is intended to enshrine in primary legislaton the requirement that regulations shall set out conditions for disabled people repaying loans, which are separate from the conditions set out for the generality of borrowers. There are, however, difficulties with the drafting of Lords amendment No. 9, which Government amendment (a) tidies. First, it clearly imposes a duty on the Secretary of State. That was no doubt


intended by the other place, but the wording did not quite achieve that. The amendment needs tidying in other respects to remove the unnecessary reference to students who will not be repaying loans and to make it clear that the regulations should contain this separate provision. Those points are covered accurately by the Bill and do not affect the substance of what we are trying to do.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) for pointing out that the Government have already responded. In a parliamentary answer on 19 March, I responded to several points that had been made about disabled people. The right way to proceed was to listen carefully to debates and then to respond. That partly answers the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). He referred to disabled people not working in subsequent years or receiving low incomes, but they will not have to make repayments during those years. Those on low incomes will be fully covered by the arrangements that apply to everyone else.
On 19 March I announced particular provision for disabled people: that there will be separate repayment arrangements for borrowers, which will take the form of a disregard of disability-related benefits for the purpose of assessing a disabled graduate's income for deferment.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall answer the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe first. He and other hon. Members asked about people who become disabled after graduation. The plan to disregard the disability-related benefit income of disabled repayers will apply at the time of the repaying if at that time the individual is disabled. Therefore, it will apply to those who become disabled subsequently.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How will a young man or woman cope if, after graduation, he or she gradually becomes deaf or blind or suffers from a progressive disease? Will they be expected to repay their loans, although for the reasons I gave in my speech their financial problems increase as their working life proceeds?

Mr. MacGregor: Such people will be expected to repay the loans if they have incomes which, after netting off the disability-related benefits, would take them into the income brackets where loans are repaid. They will have the advantage of netting off the disability-related benefits, which will make the appropriate difference.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has had any discussions with the Department of Social Security about the definition of disablement and say whether it includes those who are deaf?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that this subject is being discussed in the Department of Social Security and that draft regulations relating to student social security entitlement are being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is consulting widely. If hon. Members wish to make representations or points about these matters, they should make them to my right hon. Friend.
The amendment does not affect the provision, because it will be included in regulations which will be subject initially to the affirmative resolution procedure. We are putting in the Bill a requirement to consider the needs of

the disabled. Given the safeguard of inscription in the Bill, there is no need for the lesser safeguard contained in Opposition amendment (c), whereby such regulations would continue to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The provision in the Opposition's amendment (b) for deaf students would be misplaced in regulations applying to the timing and manner of repayment. Entitlement to benefit will have no bearing on the arrangements for top-up loans.
The key points are these. Deaf students will have particularly extensive resources available to them, especially in view of our decision to enhance significantly the disabled students allowance, payable with the mandatory grant. That is my immediate rebuttal to the point made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. That allowance will go to deaf students. It has been increased by 30 per cent., as I announced on 19 March, and I hope that the House feels that that is a generous response to the previous requests and shows that we have taken note of points made during debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, not only is that an increase up to £1,000 for everyone, but in addition we have introduced allowances up to £3,000 for specialist equipment during a course and up to £4,000 for non-medical helpers. I hope that the House feels that these are important additions.
I assure the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the administration of the disabled students allowance, including the additional allowances, will be as now. They will be administered by the local education authority in England and by the Scottish Education Department in Scotland. There will be no cash limit. The disabled retention of benefits will be based on the disability premium criteria, subject to parliamentary scrutiny of the DSS regulations. Those regulations will come before Parliament in due course, which will enable further discussion to take place.
Taken together, these are significant advances to help the disabled, including deaf students. They will enable deaf students to avoid building up additional debts as a result of disability, and I hope that the House will welcome them. I ask the House to accept the Government amendment in preference to that from another place and to reject the two Opposition amendments.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I rule, as I ruled previously in respect of Lords amendment No. 8, that Lords amendment No 10 imposes a charge upon the public revenue not authorised by resolution of the House; therefore, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, it is deemed to be disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 15 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 4, line 51, at end insert—
(8) No document sent in connection with loans under the arrangements by any such person or body as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be regarded as sent with a view to financial gain within the meaning of section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (circulars to minors).

Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment for the avoidance of doubt. It allows the Student Loans Company to make information about the scheme widely available, including schools where pupils are thinking about undertaking


higher education and higher education institutions where, of course, some students are minors. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made this matter of conveying information to everyone a top priority in his speeches in Committee. The amendment also enables the company to send loan agreement forms to students who are under 18 and who have applied for a loan.
The Government always intended that students under 18 should be eligible for loans. We also intended that the scheme should satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 50 of that Act prohibits the sending of documents to minors with a view to financial gain, inviting them to borrow money or to apply for information or to get advice on borrowing money. That section is untested. The words are lucid, but the application is unclear. The crucial words in the amendment are
with a view to financial gain".
The common-sense view, which I know hon. Members and the other place will take, is that the Student Loans Company Ltd. could not be construed as operating with a view to financial gain from loans. However, we have been advised that the courts might conclude that section 50 technically prevented the company from disseminating information about the scheme and from sending loan agreement documents to applicants. Of course it would have been quite wrong to allow the scheme to proceed in conditions of such uncertainty, and it is right to put it beyond doubt that, in sending information or invitations—

Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister is talking about sending out information. Has the law been broken by sending schools student loan information leaflets, thereby disseminating the information to people who are under 18?

Mr. Jackson: I do not think that that could possibly be the case. We are talking about information on legislation that has not yet been enacted. The information was quite properly sent out under the rules that govern the provision of information following Second Reading. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was rightly eloquent about that matter. I can remember Opposition Members arguing in Committee that such information should be provided, and we have provided it.
It would clearly be wrong to allow the scheme to proceed with such uncertainty and it is right to put it beyond doubt that, in sending information or invitations, the company is not acting with a view to financial gain. That is why I commend Lords amendment No. 16 to the House.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The amendment is part of the shambles that results from the fact that the Government have not given proper thought to the Bill. We have come to a new matter for discussion, and the Minister introduced an amendment on that important matter 13 minutes before the guillotine motion expires. That is an indictment of the Government and shows the incompetent way in which they have handled the Bill from beginning to end.
While the Government amendment from the other place attempts to get round the problems posed by the

operation of the Consumer Credit Act, it does not really resolve the issue. It raises as many questions as it answers and, in the limited time available I shall list some of them.
Are the information leaflets being sent out by the Government, and distributed through the schools, breaking the existing law? I have just put that question to the Under-Secretary, who did not answer it. The Government need to reconsider that matter. If someone signs up for the loan before they are 18, are they obliged to pay it back afterwards? I do not know, and the Government need to tell us.
What of the position in Scotland, where many students commence their higher education before the age of 18? In the Bill, the Government have shown a despicable lack of regard for the Scottish interest in higher education—a disregard which they have shown from the outset, and show on all matters relating to Scotland. Is parental consent required for those under 18 to engage in the loans, and what is the position of students for whom it might not be forthcoming? Are guarantors required for those students taking out loans when under 18, and what provision is the administration of the scheme making for that?
10.30 pm
These are not minor administrative details, but important questions. It says a great deal about the incompetence and shambles which have characterised the Bill that they were discovered only at the last minute in the Lords and we are having to discuss them just nine minutes before the guillotine descends. In the Lords, Lord Peston said that such matters were all part of the danger of starting on the slippery slope of encouraging, virtually obliging, young people to go into debt to see themselves through higher education. It is shameful, and what is wrong here—and wrong with the Bill as a whole—is that it turns education into a matter of ability to pay and borrow. It gets young people into debt, when education should be available to them as of right.
Will the Minister give a straight answer to the questions that I have put this evening? As it stands, the amendment is one more sign of the shambolic nature of a Bill that has been characterised by incompetence throughout.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) makes the telling points. He raised the question of Scotland, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and I have an interest. In Scotland, a higher proportion of students go to university at 17—a number go to university or college at 16. The amendment appears to encourage them to circumvent, if it needs to be circumvented, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to ensure that credit can be offered to people under the age of 18, and the Government can induce such people to take out credit.
The Minister said that he was moving the amendment for the avoidance of doubt. He certainly was not moving it for the avoidance of debt, because debt is what the amendment is all about. It is clear that the country is already awash with credit, yet the Government wish to unload even more on people and, in so doing, unload their responsibility to fund students and their education.
Consumer credit has doubled in the past year, and more than £3 billion-worth is now given. The Minister wants to add to that credit among the crucial category of young


people under the age of 18. Two thirds of the 21 million households in this country have a total of more than 40 million transaction commitments to credit companies and other credit organisations. In moving the amendment, the Minister seeks to add to their burden.
One million people already have difficulty keeping up with their consumer credit agreements. Two million people already have problems repaying their debts. Four million already have four or more financial credit agreements, and the Minister is asking students under the age of 18, as well as those older than that to take on one more agreement.
When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he saw nothing wrong with giving credit cards to children, we did not know that the Government would move so quickly to amend the law to permit that type of practice. I urge the Minister and the Government to think again on this inappropriate clause.

Mr. Jackson: I was asked two questions by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). First, the leaflet certainly does not breach the Consumer Credit Act, because it is in no sense an invitation to borrow. Secondly, he asked about the enforceability of loans to minors—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way.
The leaflet is a description of a system that would enable—if it is approved by our two Houses—the possibility of borrowing. In no way would that be construed as contrary to the Consumer Credit Act.
As for the enforceability of loans to minors, I have been informed that in Scotland, which is always in a special position, these loans probably are enforceable against minors. In England and Wales, they are probably not enforceable unless the minor ratifies them on reaching his majority, as they are not made for the purchase of necessities. When appropriate, minors who have received loans will be asked to ratify them on reaching their majority. If they refuse to do so, no action will be taken against them, but they will not be entitled to receive further loans under the scheme.
This strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the students and those of the taxpayer. Meanwhile, this is merely a technical amendment, for the avoidance of doubt. It embodies the common-sense view that the Student Loans Company Ltd. will not act with a view to financial gain. Section 50 of the Act is clearly difficult to interpret. The courts have not yet had occasion to examine it, and we believe that it would be wrong to leave minors or the company in a position of uncertainty. It seems sensible to the Government, therefore, and to the noble Lords in another place, to clarify on the face of the Bill what most people would in any case have thought: that the company will not operate with a view to financial gain from loans. I hope the House will join me in supporting the Lords amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As we are driven towards the fall of the guillotine, I merely point out that the debate has revealed how inappropriate it is to start trying to mix the worlds of education and of credit. The Minister's last answer showed that it is impossible to reconcile the two interests. We should never have had to exclude students from the provisions of consumer legislation. As an epilogue to the Bill, the Government are introducing the marketplace to education, where it never belonged.

Mr. Straw: It was apparent from the remarks of the Under-Secretary that the Government intend, and have already carried out the intention, to send circulars to minors inducing them to borrow money. The House also heard how the Under-Secretary could offer no proper answer to the detailed questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked him.
In the closing seconds of this guillotined debate, I should like to place it on record that, because of the guillotine forced on the House by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, the House has been denied the chance properly to debate major issues of principle [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Opposition?"] They are not here because they cannot debate the issues; if they could, they would be.
This procedure represents an abuse of Parliament by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 4, line 51, at end insert:
Restriction on disclosure of information
3A.—(1) No person or body having by virtue of paragraph 3 above the function of making and recovering loans shall provide or make available to anyone else (whether for consideration or not) any information held for the purpose of discharging those functions if the information is to be used for soliciting custom for goods or services.
(2) As respects information constituting personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1984 sub-paragraph (1) above is without prejudice to the requirements of that Act but applies irrespective of any consent given for the purposes of that Act by the person to whom the information relates." —[Mr. MacGregor.]

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 10.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. Jack Straw be members of the Committee.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Ordered,
That three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Ordered,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the amendments which was passed in the other place, and with which we have disagreed, was moved by my noble Friend Earl Russell. Is it not inappropriate that no colleague of his can take part in the Committee proceedings that you have now put in motion? Is it not an exclusion of an opportunity for hon. Members in this place, of my party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] —and of others, who have been here all evening, to participate in its proceedings? I speak for the nationalists as well as for the Ulster parties. We are allowed to take part in debates in both Houses, but we are not allowed to participate in a procedure that results in us telling the other place that we disagree.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is late in raising his point of order. The motion to which it relates has already been agreed to, and the Committee should withdraw immediately.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you moved the remaining amendment at the end of our consideration of the Bill, you did not refer to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17, which related to the privacy rights of students, over which the Bill will ride roughshod. It is an important matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot advance that argument. He was caught, sadly, by the guillotine. It was not possible for him to move his amendment to the Lords amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft National Code of Local Government Conduct, which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Lakeside Health Centre

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. David Evennett: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the difficulties that are facing Lakeside health centre, which is located in my constituency. So often in Adjournment debates on health centres, the focus is on hospital facilities, and there is a tendency for the important role that is played by general practitioners to be taken for granted. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to draw attention to the valuable work that is being done by Lakeside health centre, which provides a comprehensive range of primary care services to those of my constituency who live in Thamesmead, a 1970s development which includes many system-built high-rise properties. Thamesmead has suffered from the misguided housing policies of successive Greater London council administrations and has more than its share of problems.
The practice is housed in system-built accommodation which was designed to be a health centre for 6,000 patients. Lakeside now has 12,000 registered patients. As the practice was designed to deal with half that number, an additional burden has been placed upon those who work at the centre.
Despite the difficulties, Lakeside is a good example of how a health centre should operate and it provides an extremely comprehensive range of services to the local community. The six-partner general practice based there offers the full range of additional services which general practitioners are being encouraged to provide, such as ante-natal care, minor surgery and diabetes and well woman clinics. In addition, district services such as dentistry, chiropody and speech therapy are provided at the clinic, as well as out-patient clinics held by consultants in a wide range of specialties.
The senior partner of the practice when it first opened in 1969 until his retirement in 1988 was Professor Peter Higgins, professor of general practice at Guy's hospital. He has now retired, but he continues to take a keen interest in the work of Lakeside health centre and of other groups in Thamesmead, and I should like to place on record my gratitude for all that he has done in the area and continues to do.
Peter Higgins forged a strong link between the centre and the education and training of general practitioners, and that link continues. Currently, all six partners hold part-time teaching posts with the united medical schools —Guy's and St. Thomas's—and medical students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, are regularly in attendance at the centre.
The link with professional education also has an influence on the way that services are provided at Lakeside health centre. As one would expect of doctors who are involved in the education of general practitioners, the practice at Lakeside is already pursuing policies which other practices are now being encouraged by the Government to adopt.
The doctors at Lakeside have worked hard to educate their patients and make them aware that good clinical practice does not require patients to be given a prescription every time they visit the doctor. As a consequence, the practice's prescribing costs are some 20


per cent. less than the average for other practices within the Greenwich and Bexley family practitioner committee area and about 25 per cent. less than the national average. Similarly, over 50 per cent. of prescribing is of generic alternatives to brand name drugs.
The practice has also embraced the use of information technology for a wide range of applications, and has appointed a practice manager to ensure efficient delivery of patient care.
The partners at Lakeside are committed to putting the needs of the patient first and their success in doing so is borne out by the comments of my constituents. I often hear the doctors and other staff at Lakeside praised by constituents, and I have never yet received a single complaint about the quality of health care which the centre provides.
In 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who was then Minister for Health, visited Lakeside health centre as part of a visit to Bexley health district. His comment at the time was that Lakeside
was an inner-city practice serving an inner-city population but in an outer London borough.
His view was, and still is, entirely correct and neatly sums up the situation in Thamesmead.
A large number of Thamesmead residents are from the inner city, having been decanted from areas of south London, designated for slum clearance and compulsory purchase, to Thamesmead in the early 1970s. In addition, a number of local authorities took advantage of the opportunity which Thamesmead offered and moved some of their tenants with social difficulties to Thamesmead.
Because the practice has all the problems associated with an inner-city practice, the work load of each doctor is high. With 12,000 registered patients, each doctor has a list of around 2,000. That is not particularly large for many practices, but it would be difficult for the doctors at Lakeside to expand their lists beyond that number without reducing the quality of the health care that they provide given that the consultation rate per patient at Lakeside is around 30 per cent. higher than average. A measure of the effect that that high consultation rate has is that the practice can expect to see over 90 per cent. of all female patients at least once a year.
The difficulties that the practice faces are not helped by the building in which it is located. The design of the health centre is such that effective use cannot be made of the space available. There is no proper storage facility for patients' medical records, which are simply kept on open racks behind the reception desk. The number of consulting rooms is insufficient for a large and busy practice which offers a wide range of services. Until recently, these problems were made worse by the need for some of the partners to keep buckets on their examination couches to catch the rain water coming through the roof, although I am pleased to say that the roof has now been repaired.
Because of all the problems associated with the building, the partners asked the district health authority to carry out repairs and alterations. It was agreed that a programme of work would be carried out in three phases at a total cost of £100,000. Phase 1 was the repair of the roof which, as I have already said, has been carried out. Phase 2 was internal structural alterations to make better use of the existing space by providing a proper storage facility for records and three much-needed additional consulting rooms. Phase 3 was minor general repairs and

decoration. I regret to say that phases 2 and 3 have been halted by Bexley health authority because of a lack of funds for capital projects.
When the partners first brought the matter to my attention, I naturally raised it with the Brian Hord, the chairman of Bexley health authority. While he was sympathetic to the needs of Lakeside, and hoped that the district would be able to complete the work in the next financial year, he told me that there were no guarantees that the work would proceed, because Bexley health authority had not received capital resources of £300,000 which it had expected from South Thames regional health authority. As a consequence, a number of projects had been stopped, including the remaining work at Lakeside.
I am extremely concerned that the work has been abandoned because it is not simply a question of making the centre look better, although I believe that the partners, as tenants of the district health authority, are entitled to expect their landlord to keep the premises in reasonable decorative order. The delay in carrying out alterations affects the treatment which is being provided for patients, because the changes are necessary to ensure the effective delivery of service to patients. Until such time as the additional facilities are available, the pressure on existing consulting space will continue. The partners are asking not for lavish suites of room, but simply for the provision of enough consulting rooms to enable them to provide a proper service for their patients.
I have no doubt that the district and the regional health authorities have prepared their arguments as to where the money is, why it was not available and who is to blame, although from my point of view all that is unimportant. My immediate concern is that some of my constituents are not receiving health care in an appropriate manner because essential work has not been carried out. The work must be done. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take whatever steps he can to ensure that the work is carried out with all possible speed.
The other major issue which has caused considerable concern at Lakeside health centre applies equally to practices in other areas similar to Thamesmead. None the less, it has specific implications for Lakeside. I refer to the criteria for eligibility for deprivation payments under the new general practitioner contract. My hon. Friend will already be aware of some of my concerns from our correspondence on the issue. As I have already said, Thamesmead suffers many of the problems normally associated with inner-city areas, with possibly one exception—that there is little overcrowding because of the modern housing stock, although living in high-rise, system-built dwellings can bring problems of a different kind.
As a consequence, the electoral ward of Thamesmead, East, which is in my constituency, has a score of over 27 on the Jarman index of deprivation, the measure of deprivation used to determine eligibility for payments under the new contract. To put that score into perspective, we must remember that only 15 per cent. of the population live in areas where the Jarman score is over 20. Thamesmead, East is certainly different from the other wards in my constituency. Of the other wards, the next nearest score is 18, and the remainder are much lower, mostly in single figures. That further confirms my earlier remarks about Thamesmead.
The deprivation allowance paid since the beginning of this month is given only to practices in areas with a Jarman


score of more than 30—not on a sliding scale or taper of any kind, but based on a once-and-for-all threshold of 30. The difference in the problems experienced by practices in areas that score between 29 and 31 must be negligible, yet one will receive the allowance in full while the other will receive nothing. That is illogical and unfair. As the Jarman score for Thamesmead, East is "only" 27, Lakeside does not qualify for the allowance.
That is unsatisfactory, not only because Lakeside is the kind of practice that should receive additional help but because it is likely that the Jarman score would be higher if it were based on up-to-date statistics. The current figure is based on information from the 1981 census, but Thamesmead has changed significantly since then. For example, a Vietnamese community of about 600 has moved into the area since then, and its specific problems are not reflected in the Jarman scale.
Lakeside is not the kind of practice that is able to generate additional income beyond the basic allowances. Despite the determined efforts of the centre's doctors, meeting immunisation and cervical cytology targets is a difficult, if not impossible, task. Doctors in a practice such as Lakeside can expect to work harder and to earn less than they would elsewhere—and with the high cost of living in the south-east, recruitment is always a problem.
Deprivation payments should be made to practices such as Lakeside which have problems that they cannot alter or overcome by adopting a different approach, because the problems are beyond their control. There is no logic in the present system, which stipulates that if an area does not have a Jarman score of more than 30 it does not qualify. Given that a small percentage of the population live in areas having a Jarman score of more than 20, it would be logical to pay the allowance on a tapering scale, at least to areas scoring more than 25. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is always concerned with the quality of health care, to give that suggestion serious consideration.
Lakeside health centre does a first-class job in difficult circumstances, and its situation has not been helped by the delay in making vital changes to the centre's fabric, or by the current system for paying deprivation allowances. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to exert what pressure he can to remedy the situation there. The doctors and staff at Lakeside do what is asked of them and the rest of the NHS, by putting the needs of their patients first. We must help by providing the resources that they need to continue providing my constituents in Thamesmead with health care of a standard that they are entitled to expect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on the able way in which he presented the case for Lakeside health centre. My hon. Friend is a valiant and persistent defender of and advocate for his constituents. He is a Member of Parliament whom the Department of Health knows well and much respects for his activities in the south-east region and in his constituency.
I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency on 16 January in relation to Erith hospital

—an issue that has not yet been resolved, although I hope that it soon will be. In any event, that is not the subject of tonight's debate.
My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) was much impressed by Lakeside health centre when he visited it in 1987. It provides a wide range of services, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford touched on some of them. They include audiology, dental care, dietary and speech therapy, family planning, child care, chiropody —an excellent range of services assisting his constituents, provided by a range of staff, including six general practitioners, a practice nurse, two qualified nurses, the equivalent of four and a half whole-time employees who act as receptionists and another four and a half whole-time equivalents acting as clerical and secretarial assistants. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend refer to information technology in use at the centre, a development that we are anxious to encourage.
How great the local need is for health care services, primary services in particular, of that quality was graphically described by my hon. Friend. Those needs, arising from social deprivation—one-parent families, limited employment opportunities and the arrival of new communities from as far afield as Bangladesh and Vietnam —were much in the mind of Professor Peter Higgins when setting up the general practice at the Lakeside health centre in the mid-1970s.
As professor of general practice at Guy's hospital, Professor Higgins was in the vanguard of those who believed that a health centre should play a positive social, as well as medical, role in the community, and for almost two decades he has guided young trainee GPs in that philosophy.
Professor Higgins, as well as being the vice-chairman of South East Thames regional health authority, has done much valuable work in developing funding for general practice and is currently advising the Department of Health on the general practice implications of the White Paper. Indeed, Lakeside health centre could hardly have two more formidable champions than Professor Higgins and my hon. Friend. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Professor Higgins for his long service in the South East Thames regional health authority area. I recently had the pleasure of being with him when I visited the Medway towns.
My hon. Friend raised as his first issue the question of deprivation payments. The Government believe that it is right to reward GPs for the extra work involved in caring for patients who live in areas of deprivation. As part of the GPs' new contract, a capitation payment has been introduced from 1 April linked to an index of deprivation developed by Professor Jarman of St. Mary's hospital medical school.
The British Medical Association's general medical services committee agrees with the Government that the Jarman index provides the best means currently available. The index is made up taking into account a number of factors, including unemployment, the numbers of elderly people living alone, household overcrowding, the number of children under five, the number of unskilled, single-parent households, the number of residents in ethnic households and the numbers who have moved house, giving an indication of the mobility of the population.
My hon. Friend mentioned the census of 1981. We will shortly have a fresh census, in 1991, and I am the Minister


responsible for its preparation. The index figures will be updated once the new statistics from the census are available.
Our policy objectives are to target deprivation payments on those practices that serve areas of highest deprivation. We have therefore chosen a cut-off point of 30 index points, although I accept that this means that some practices—for example, those to which my hon. Friend referred—which fall just short of that figure will not receive payment.
That is not to say that we do not recognise the hard work and dedication put in by such practices in providing general medical services to their patients. As my hon. Friend will recognise, the question where to draw the line is a matter of judgment. Under the scheme, about 9 per cent. of patients in England will generate a deprived area payment for their general practitioner. That seems to us very reasonable.
If we had chosen a much lower cut-off point—say, 16 on the Jarman index, which would then certainly include my hon. Friend's general practice patient lists—we would be including about 25 per cent. of the population in England. a much broader number, and we would, if we were not to provide additional resources by deducting them from some other part of the NHS, have to spread the £25 million, which it will cost in 1990–91 to make those payments, much more thinly.
Therefore, I strongly believe that that would have been to the detriment of the existing scheme. In areas where the deprivation index is between 30 and 39, it amounts to £4·90 per head on the patient list; for an index of between 40 and 49 it amounts to £6·40; for an index of more than 50 points—that is very severe deprivation, such as in some of the inner-London wards—it amounts to a payment of £8·50. Therefore, as my hon. Friend will calculate, for an average patient list of 2,000 patients, that means £17,000 extra to the general practitioner to help him to develop his services.
The Government believe that we have got the concentration and the targeting right, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance—we shall study the Official Report of the debate with care—that the Government will monitor the GPs' new contract to ensure that it is achieving the Government's objective of raising standards and extending services. We shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about the consequences of a cut-off point at 30.
On the second point that my hon. Friend made, I can perhaps give him greater encouragement and assurances than I have been able to give him so far—the building at Lakeside. It is perhaps a product of the 1970s— a glass and concrete design with flat roofs. There is so much glass that in cold weather the building has been too cold, and in sunny weather the staff and patients have been too hot. The Lakeside centre was an award-winning architectural design but technical problems have arisen and, sadly, vandalism has also defaced the building.
In modern designs for such health centres, we would concentrate more on energy conservation; we might use brick, which is certainly a more friendly medium for a building; we would certainly have pitched roofs; and we would try to make buildings more vandal-proof.
It is of course the roof that has been the cause of most recent problems but, as my hon. Friend has tellingly pointed out, other structural renovations are sorely

needed. Bexley health authority and South East Thames regional health authority are both very much aware of this. In fact, a £100,000 renovation programme was planned for 1989, which would have brought the centre up to a generally acceptable standard. Unfortunately, after £40,000 of that sum had been spent on roof repairs, the programme had to be frozen. The reasons for that, although complicated in financial terms, can be traced back, link by link, to the primary cause of a fall in land values.
Apart from capital money from regions, most district health authorities, particularly in the south-east, have planned to supplement their funds from capital derived from land sales. Bexley health authority was no exception. I understand that genuine expectations were held by Bexley health authority of selling a plot of land adjacent to Bexley hospital for more than £350,000. Of this sum, £100,000 was earmarked for the renovation of Lakeside health centre. South East Thames regional health authority had in fact advanced £350,000 to Bexley in anticipation of the sum being raised. Unfortunately, the sale has not been completed because of issues involving planning permission, particularly tree preservation orders.
I recall that, as a Back Bencher, I introduce a private Member's Bill, which eventually became law, dealing with the protection of trees and the prevention of the removal of trees subject to preservation orders when planning permission was required. To that extent, I apologise to my hon. Friend if I have in any way caused problems to him and to his constituency.
Bexley health authority hopes to find a way round those problems, but is not in a position yet to give any guarantee. In view of this, and in the light of its own serious shortfall in capital resources—another consequence of falling land values—South East Thames regional health authority had reluctantly to withdraw its bridging loan to Bexley.
Bexley health authority's capital programme for 1990–91 stands at £1·1 million. The authority does not yet know how much of the programme it will be able to fulfil until it learns what uncommitted capital it can expect to receive from the regional health authority. Negotiations are taking place. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not say anything further here which may prejudge them. I can say, however, that Bexley health authority is optimistic that, from one source or another, it will have sufficient funds to complete the programme for Lakeside health centre during 1990–91. Thus rejuvenated, the centre will, I am sure, provide as fine a service for future generations of Thamesmeaders as it has for almost two decades past.
As for my hon. Friend's point regarding deprivation allowances, although by targeting the resources we have omitted the ward in which the centre is placed, I can assure him that we shall monitor carefully the effect of the scheme. Where changes are necessary, we shall certainly consider them.
I am as confident as I can be that the problems with the building to which he alluded will be put right. I plan to visit Lakeside, upon my hon. Friend's invitation, in the spring of next year—by which time I hope that Bexley's plans will have been brought to fruition—to see progress for myself and to see a fine health centre in operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.